RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare

RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/7/2012 11:20:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If they get their knickers in a twist over the lack of nutrition in candy, they could ban candy, as the pure sugar it is made of can be deleterious to your health. Most of it's full of hfcs, not pure sugar. As far as the body is concerned, sugar is sugar. One does not have to have been to med school to spot bullshit passing as something other than bullshit.

thompsonx -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/7/2012 11:31:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Got any authority for that statement, Aylee? Because this study says you are wrong. 40 people. Subtle differences. That is really not enough research. He even states that there need to be more studies to determine long term effects. Regardless, I should be able to buy myself a 44 ounce super gulp FULL of HFCS if I want to. You should also be allowed to purchase a 44 ouncer of arsenic but you aren't Why are't you bitching about that?

Moonhead -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/7/2012 12:14:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Marini quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl A beginning towards what? You act as if this is the first time. ditto A beginning towards WHAT? I don't get the point here. You don't? This is the beginnings of government dictating your lifestyle in the food area. It's a very small step in the process of controlling what the government believes is bad for you. Had you ever been exposed to a history class taught for someone beyond the fifth grade you would have heard of the pure food and drug act. I pointed that one out three pages back. He didn't give me an answer either...

thompsonx -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/7/2012 2:11:48 PM)
quote: You and I both know damn well that on wages, the rich are paying far more. You know as well as I do that the rich do not work for wages. For you to bring it up is disingenuous at best. quote: It's the capital gains that drives their percentage lower. But, capital gains and income aren't the same type of income anyway. They are both income and if you want to put mascarra and lip stick on a pig it is still a pig. quote: The next thing to think about is, wasn't the money that purchased the capital already taxed? In the case of investors, many of them are using after-tax dollars to do so.] So what. Take your after tax income and bet on a slot machine and your winnings are income...Tell me how exactly a slot machine differs from wall street? quote: In cases where stocks are part of the "pay," I take no issue including that as income, subject to the same rates as wages. However, if you're talking about someone who has spent after-tax dollars to buy an investment, even though that money has grown, it has already been taxed. Yes, I realize that the taxable portion is just the growth, and not the initial investment. But, what you are saying, then, is that there is no benefit to taking the risk in investing in something. False premise leads to a false conclusion every time. What induces a gambler to put money into a slot machine? The same thing that induces one to invest in the market...The chance of gain. What you want to do is have the government subsidize your gambling jones. quote: But, like I said, if investments are given as pay, I think those should be taxed as regular income. Because you and certain tax lawyers say they are different does not ipso facto make it so.

thompsonx -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/7/2012 2:14:39 PM)
quote: Had you ever been exposed to a history class taught for someone beyond the fifth grade you would have heard of the pure food and drug act. I pointed that one out three pages back. He didn't give me an answer either... "I'll alert the press." eta:Irony points for correctly identifying the quote.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/7/2012 6:58:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The same people who built internment camps, bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, refuse to adopt a single payer medical plan while pissing away billions to invade a nation that posed no threat to them under false pretences, promote a method of natural gas extraction that contaminates ground water and destroys farmland, put chemically processed shit in their food because it's cheaper than cane sugar, and think that capitalism will organise itself in society's best interests without any coercion, you mean? Yep, I'm really optimistic about these people. Anybody who isn't a pessimist about human nature is probably too fucking stupid to be any use as a lab animal, Styre. Not even an acknowledgement that I actually did produce something other than people not being the same. All you can do is bitch bitch bitch about shit and change the shit that you're bitching about when someone ends the first bitch. Nice.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/7/2012 7:29:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: You and I both know damn well that on wages, the rich are paying far more. You know as well as I do that the rich do not work for wages. For you to bring it up is disingenuous at best. Perhaps you should read everything before you start responding, eh? I would support taxing stocks and bonds that are given as pay at the same rate as other wages. But, you apparently can't even figure out how to edit your post even after responding to that part anyway. quote: quote: It's the capital gains that drives their percentage lower. But, capital gains and income aren't the same type of income anyway. They are both income and if you want to put mascarra and lip stick on a pig it is still a pig. But, at least you'd be able to make bacon. Mmmmmm....bacon.... quote: quote: The next thing to think about is, wasn't the money that purchased the capital already taxed? In the case of investors, many of them are using after-tax dollars to do so.] So what. Take your after tax income and bet on a slot machine and your winnings are income...Tell me how exactly a slot machine differs from wall street? Oh, yeah, they are [sarcasm]exactly[/sarcasm] the same. Forget the part about raising capital by a business that tends to go to improvements and production. You know, production of stuff for you and me to purchase. Things to make our lives a bit better. quote: quote: In cases where stocks are part of the "pay," I take no issue including that as income, subject to the same rates as wages. However, if you're talking about someone who has spent after-tax dollars to buy an investment, even though that money has grown, it has already been taxed. Yes, I realize that the taxable portion is just the growth, and not the initial investment. But, what you are saying, then, is that there is no benefit to taking the risk in investing in something. False premise leads to a false conclusion every time. What induces a gambler to put money into a slot machine? The same thing that induces one to invest in the market...The chance of gain. What you want to do is have the government subsidize your gambling jones. You're right about false premises. Unfortunately, you didn't apply it correctly though. While many people might look to the stock market to grow wealth, most don't do it thinking they are going to "hit the jackpot" with one trade. How popular would a slot machine be if you had to wait months or decades to find out if you won or lost? quote: quote: But, like I said, if investments are given as pay, I think those should be taxed as regular income. Because you and certain tax lawyers say they are different does not ipso facto make it so. well, seeing how that's the way the Federal Government treats it, pretty much does make it so.

Moonhead -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/8/2012 4:58:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Not even an acknowledgement that I actually did produce something other than people not being the same. You didn't. Maybe you should acknowledge that instead of whining.

thompsonx -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/8/2012 6:54:29 AM)
quote: quote: quote: But, like I said, if investments are given as pay, I think those should be taxed as regular income. Because you and certain tax lawyers say they are different does not ipso facto make it so. well, seeing how that's the way the Federal Government treats it, pretty much does make it so. Those were the tax lawyers I was refering to.

thompsonx -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/8/2012 7:04:07 AM)
quote: quote: quote: In cases where stocks are part of the "pay," I take no issue including that as income, subject to the same rates as wages. However, if you're talking about someone who has spent after-tax dollars to buy an investment, even though that money has grown, it has already been taxed. Yes, I realize that the taxable portion is just the growth, and not the initial investment. But, what you are saying, then, is that there is no benefit to taking the risk in investing in something. False premise leads to a false conclusion every time. What induces a gambler to put money into a slot machine? The same thing that induces one to invest in the market...The chance of gain. What you want to do is have the government subsidize your gambling jones. quote: You're right about false premises. Unfortunately, you didn't apply it correctly though. While many people might look to the stock market to grow wealth, most don't do it thinking they are going to "hit the jackpot" with one trade. Don't you find it more than a little pretentious to presume to speak for all or most investors/gamblers? My point was and is that gambling is gambling whether it is vegas or wall street. Whether you hit it today or next year is hardly relevant quote: How popular would a slot machine be if you had to wait months or decades to find out if you won or lost? One might also ask what prompts someone to sink money into an ipo vs ibm???one offers the potential for instant payday the other offers security. Poker would be ibm and roulette the ipo.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/8/2012 7:57:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Not even an acknowledgement that I actually did produce something other than people not being the same. You didn't. Maybe you should acknowledge that instead of whining. You missed the whole internet thingy? Man, get some reading glasses.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/8/2012 9:07:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: quote: quote: In cases where stocks are part of the "pay," I take no issue including that as income, subject to the same rates as wages. However, if you're talking about someone who has spent after-tax dollars to buy an investment, even though that money has grown, it has already been taxed. Yes, I realize that the taxable portion is just the growth, and not the initial investment. But, what you are saying, then, is that there is no benefit to taking the risk in investing in something. False premise leads to a false conclusion every time. What induces a gambler to put money into a slot machine? The same thing that induces one to invest in the market...The chance of gain. What you want to do is have the government subsidize your gambling jones. quote: Quite the opposite, actually. But, rewarding investors (you know, the ones who take their capital and give it to a corporation for them to use to improve their business, with the hopes that they will be rewarded with a return on their investment) is a good thing. Gambling is not the same as investing. Is it similar? Yes. Is it the same? No. I believe they even have a higher tax rate on gambling wins, regardless of your income level, too. quote: quote: You're right about false premises. Unfortunately, you didn't apply it correctly though. While many people might look to the stock market to grow wealth, most don't do it thinking they are going to "hit the jackpot" with one trade. Don't you find it more than a little pretentious to presume to speak for all or most investors/gamblers? My point was and is that gambling is gambling whether it is vegas or wall street. Whether you hit it today or next year is hardly relevant Does a gambler drop money in an effort to help the company he's giving his money to? Is the gambler profiting off the improvement of that which he is investing in? If the gambler sees a return on his investment, is that which he is gambling on better? quote: quote: How popular would a slot machine be if you had to wait months or decades to find out if you won or lost? One might also ask what prompts someone to sink money into an ipo vs ibm???one offers the potential for instant payday the other offers security. Poker would be ibm and roulette the ipo. IPO's offer a much greater return, and there are some who do gamble on them. Those people are also burned when the shit hits the fan. See the dotcom boom and bust. The hullaballoo over Facebook's IPO just goes to show that we may not have learned our lessons from the late 90's. Every financial planner I've ever talked to has recommended to not invest if you can't do without that money invested. Plug it in and let it sit. Choose wisely and wait. Much less to do when you gamble and rely on the roll of the dice, the cut of the deck, or anything else left solely up to chance. You can choose to believe a casino game is the same as investing on Wall Street. I have no issue with that. If you want to invest the same way you gamble, go for it. Your money. Your call.

Moonhead -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/8/2012 12:06:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Not even an acknowledgement that I actually did produce something other than people not being the same. You didn't. Maybe you should acknowledge that instead of whining. You missed the whole internet thingy? Man, get some reading glasses. In economic terms, the internet has changed fuck all besides allowing a few retailers to do without paying rent on a storefront and facilitating certain forms of fraud. Arguing otherwise is a pre millennium schtick which looks pretty fucking stupid this side of the dot.com bust.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/8/2012 2:26:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Not even an acknowledgement that I actually did produce something other than people not being the same. You didn't. Maybe you should acknowledge that instead of whining. You missed the whole internet thingy? Man, get some reading glasses. In economic terms, the internet has changed fuck all besides allowing a few retailers to do without paying rent on a storefront and facilitating certain forms of fraud. Arguing otherwise is a pre millennium schtick which looks pretty fucking stupid this side of the dot.com bust. Bad kitty. Are you seriously saying that the changes due to the blossoming of the internet are meaningless outside of a few retailers? Lemme guess you're the owner of that one shop that just upgraded to typewriters in the Q-Loans commercial, right?

Moonhead -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/8/2012 2:52:38 PM)
That's exactly what I'm saying, and no, I'm not. Amazon and ebay have done extremely well out of the internet, but it hasn't quite had the enormous world changing impact that everybody was blathering about in Wired fifteen years ago. There's still a lot of hype and bullshit about it even now, but apart from putting a dent in record company profits and making it a lot easier to argue with fuckwits, it hasn't actually changed anything much about the global economy. If you can prove otherwise, then go ahead, but bear in mind that a load of absurd blather about vapourware "what ifs" is only proof that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/8/2012 8:14:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead That's exactly what I'm saying, and no, I'm not. Amazon and ebay have done extremely well out of the internet, but it hasn't quite had the enormous world changing impact that everybody was blathering about in Wired fifteen years ago. There's still a lot of hype and bullshit about it even now, but apart from putting a dent in record company profits and making it a lot easier to argue with fuckwits, it hasn't actually changed anything much about the global economy. If you can prove otherwise, then go ahead, but bear in mind that a load of absurd blather about vapourware "what ifs" is only proof that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's amazing how you can simply ignore how business is done today. Without the internet and the technologies, we'd be nowhere near where we are in the retail world. Information can be disseminated all over the world within seconds. If you think waiting for a fucking boat to take a message across the pond to Britain and for one to return the response is best, go for it. Best of luck keeping up with the rest of the world. The internet has changed the way we learn, the way we communicate, and, for some, the way we live. It is far beyond Amazon, EBay, etc. How's AOL working for ya?

Moonhead -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/9/2012 4:45:07 AM)
AOL is a shitawful ISP. If that's the best argument you can find for the internet, you've got nothing. As for the other, while I have been paid through paypal a few times, I'd much sooner be posted a cheque, and I'd be interested to see how anything else physical can be sent over the internet. (While you're at it, I suggest you tell the Chinese how easy the internet makes it to disseminate information internationally as well. They've not had any problem nipping that one in the bud.) Everything you're coming out with sounds like the hopelessly optimistic blather Timothy Leary was spouting in the late '90s. He was wrong, and you're no righter than he was. All the internet provides is another way of wasting your time, and it doesn't even provide that inexpensively.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/9/2012 6:12:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Not even an acknowledgement that I actually did produce something other than people not being the same. You didn't. Maybe you should acknowledge that instead of whining. You missed the whole internet thingy? Man, get some reading glasses. In economic terms, the internet has changed fuck all besides allowing a few retailers to do without paying rent on a storefront and facilitating certain forms of fraud. Arguing otherwise is a pre millennium schtick which looks pretty fucking stupid this side of the dot.com bust. Actually the internet has changed business quite a bit, and almost every business, starting from phone providers to retailers. You can order online (almost no company can exist without a website), you can compare prices online, you can get reviews online without going through tons of back issues of consumer reports. It has changed journalism massively, not always for the better (a lot of the research done now is a bit shoddy) but with all the new gadgets, information that could be repressed easily by exorting control over a paper or magazine, so a few people might have seen an incident, no media writes about it - now it's on the camera of a smart phone, uploaded to youtube in minutes, around the world and in major media outlets within hours. You can't say the internet has changed fuck all, where a lot of retailers had a cornered market, that market became open and consumers could compare and exchange information, it changed the pricing structure dramatically. Almost 20 years ago when I had my first flat, I went through the local paper to find a used dryer and washing machine and hoped I'd get lucky. Now for not much more I get top end brand new stuff, doesn't matter much if it's in my area or not because the internet also spawned cheap shipping companies, I can compare online, check consumer reports, order stuff and have it delivered just as fast as if it would be from the shop in town. Regarding work, massive differences well, how many jobs can be done remotely? Doesn't matter where I am physically, as long as I keep my deadlines... Instead of difficult meetings where you get people from different countries all on one table, you use video conferences now and share slides and documents online. Cuts costs. International money transfers, you had to walk up to your bank, make an appointment and hope the person in the bank knew what they were doing, even Britain joined the 21st century and you can do it online now. Another example is you go shopping, you need a dress for a wedding, most stores have the info available online what is there in your size, years ago in the better shops they would call other shops to try and find your size, giving a description of the dress or shoes, now they give the number into the computer, yep, it's in another shop in the size you want it, they send it over. For me and most people I know, the internet has made a massive difference, though I think smart phones have possibly made the biggest impact.

Moonhead -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/9/2012 7:28:39 AM)
That's all fripperies and distractions, or purely commercial changes though. A lot of it is very convenient, but it's still pretty trivial.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/9/2012 8:43:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead That's all fripperies and distractions, or purely commercial changes though. A lot of it is very convenient, but it's still pretty trivial. That's a cop-out comment, in that respect you could also try and say electricity is trivial, can't see you going without it. It has changed businesses and how business is done to a large degree, businesses had to adapt to the internet or they would have gone out of business - you consider that trivial? Who looks for a plumber in the yellow pages anymore? You check online. You buy a house, you check online first. I don't know how old you are, but I vaguely remember not having all that info so readily available, now there isn't really anybody anymore who is not online. Emails have replaced faxes completely, the flow of information is quicker. Try and have an old fashioned business without anything that has to do with the internet, no computers, you try and order the old fashioned way, keep your stock the old fashioned way, no online ads, no webpage - see how quickly your company will go bust. I honestly do not know a single person who's life would not be different without the internet, and I don't mean in a recreational way but work wise, and if you consider work trivial, then congratulations to being a trust fund baby, most of us have to work for a living and simply can't afford to just ignore new technologies.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625