remember, kids, Discrimination starts with a (D)

[Troglodyte]

You'd be amazed how people will stop breeding kids they cant afford when you stop subsidizing that behavior with OPM. As for taking kids away from un-fit parents and raising them in foster care where they have a chance of becoming decent productive citizens I'd be all for it. The cost of it on the front end would be way less than the generational costs we are paying now.

If you have taken in foster kids or adopted a child, god bless. Most peoe aren't willing to do that. Many children do eventually get taken from their parents. Unfortunately, AFTER the parents prove they need to be taken away.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

You'd be amazed how people will stop breeding kids they cant afford when you stop subsidizing that behavior with OPM. As for taking kids away from un-fit parents and raising them in foster care where they have a chance of becoming decent productive citizens I'd be all for it. The cost of it on the front end would be way less than the generational costs we are paying now.

Have you ever tried to become a foster parent? It's a nightmare!!!!!

 

[ark steel]

So you are claiming that monthly food stamp allotments are based on a food price index?

I don't know exactly, but the following scenario is not hard to imagine.

1. Increase tax on "junk food".
2. Thousands of pages of regulations and millions of lobbyists dollars later, we know what this meanS because unelected political appointees have decided for you.
3. The cost of the average food bill for food stamps recipients goes up.
4, "Something MUST be done.!! Nobody could have forseen this!!"

We have increased government regulations, and because more people needed to administer. And increased government through the food stamp program.

 

[oneforthebus]

I don't know exactly, but the following scenario is not hard to imagine.

1. Increase tax on "junk food".
2. Thousands of pages of regulations and millions of lobbyists dollars later, we know what this meanS because unelected political appointees have decided for you.
3. The cost of the average food bill for food stamps recipients goes up.
4, "Something MUST be done.!! Nobody could have forseen this!!"

We have increased government regulations, and because more people needed to administer. And increased government through the food stamp program.

Shush ark...it's all for your own good. Of course the whole process will be streamlined, efficient and cost effective...look at Healthcare.gov for goodness sake! They did such a great job with the difficult task of building a website, I'm sure planning all of our diets for us will be a piece of cake...er um, I mean a piece of kale.

 

[Rod Farva]

Those articles are nonsense. They show Twinkies and Ho Hos and then mention snack cakes that are high fibre. Those aren't Twinkies and Ho Hos! They mention fried food and then stress healthier oils and moderation. So sautéing in olive oil is healthier than deep frying in lard? No ****! None of it refutes anything I've said.

Ask any PCP or bariatric surgeon and they can quickly identify foods that are causing obesity. Soda. deep fried food, fried snacks, pastries, etc you're the only person I've ever seen suggest its debatable.

Good luck finding a morbidly obese person that eats nothing but healthy foods. Watch any episode of my 600 lb Life and you'll consistently see horrible dietary choices.

Stop right there. I, like most responsible people practice it. I do NOT want to pay more for the occasional junk stuff I eat because of those who don't. I can't believe anyone is arguing for more government control and taxes.

 

[Troglodyte]

I don't know exactly.

At least you're humble enough to admit that. Maybe Vader can enlighten us?

 

[Troglodyte]

Stop right there. I, like most responsible people practice it. I do NOT want to pay more for the occasional junk stuff I eat because of those who don't. I can't believe anyone is arguing for more government control and taxes.

I don't want my income taxed to pay for it. But that is somehow more equitable?

 

[Superman]

so why not just repeal ObamaCare and let people do what they want.

otherwise, could you please post your daily intake in advance so we can vote on it, trog?

 

[Superman]

Have you ever tried to become a foster parent? It's a nightmare!!!!!

Lunar needs you to adopt him

 

[Vader]

At least you're humble enough to admit that. Maybe Vader can enlighten us?

Most federal programs have what is called a COLA. Cost of living adjustment, which is tied to the CPI.

 

[MT~Forged]

Have you ever tried to become a foster parent? It's a nightmare!!!!!

YES IT IS.. It is not about the children, it is about funding the departments that feed off of the childrens misery.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

YES IT IS.. It is not about the children, it is about funding the departments that feed off of the childrens misery.

Exactly. It's like they are punishing the GOOD people out there. I get the background checks and drug tests and home visit....but having your windows a certain width and requiring 3 fire extinguishers on each floor? Insane.

 

[oneforthebus]

Wait what's this? I thought there was no mystery as to what foods are bad for us:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/10/cholesterol-warning-may-be-ditched

The move reflects updated scientific thinking on cholesterol. While high cholesterol levels in the blood can still be a bad health indicator, scientists no longer view high blood cholesterol as a direct result of eating a cholesterol-rich diet, at least not for most people. Genetics may make some individuals more vulnerable to cholesterol in food, but scientists estimate this group only includes about 25 percent of the population.

Cholesterol is the latest in a long line of dietary demons pursued vigorosly by public-health officials only to be redeemed as nutrition science advances. One of the reasons trans fats found their way into large parts of the U.S. food supply was the government's campaign against products made with lard, prompting foodmakers to instead switch to partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils. These oils turned out to be high in the types of trans fats we now know are more dangerous than animal fats. The government also urged individuals to stop cooking with animal fats and instead use vegetable oils such as corn and soybean oil—both loaded with inflammation-spiking omega-6 fatty acids, which have been much more detrimental to American health than eating butter.

Government guidelines for optimal eating may have similarly screwed Americans over when it comes to fats in general. For years, health officials championed low-fat (and low-cholesterol) diets as optimal, pushing many to try and avoid fat in food as much as possible. But there are tons of different kinds of dietary fats, and a lot of them—particularly polyunsaturated fats of the variety found in fish, nuts, and grass-fed beef—are not just okay but incredibly beneficial for human health. Dietary fat is also necessary to help humans absorb other important nutrients, so a vegetable-filled, vitamin-rich salad actually becomes more nutritious if you add a little olive oil or egg.

Even the story behind saturated fat, characterized for decades as having no redeeming nutritional value, is a lot more complicated than scientists previously thought. A new study published in the journal Open Heart concluded that U.S. and U.K. dietary guidelines condemning saturated fat "should not have been introduced." Research has shown some types of saturated fatty acids are terrible for human health, while others are neutral or even good. As dietary science advances, more and more of this sort of nutritional nuance become apparent, making one-size-fits-all advice of the kind supplied by federal dietary guidelines seem all the more outdated.

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

Exactly. It's like they are punishing the GOOD people out there. I get the background checks and drug tests and home visit....but having your windows a certain width and requiring 3 fire extinguishers on each floor? Insane.

Providing a productive loving home is not the point. The point is that those kids are much safer living under a bridge than in a home, when is the last time you heard of a bridge burning down?

 

[Troglodyte]

Wait what's this? I thought there was no mystery as to what foods are bad for us:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/10/cholesterol-warning-may-be-ditched

The move reflects updated scientific thinking on cholesterol. While high cholesterol levels in the blood can still be a bad health indicator, scientists no longer view high blood cholesterol as a direct result of eating a cholesterol-rich diet, at least not for most people. Genetics may make some individuals more vulnerable to cholesterol in food, but scientists estimate this group only includes about 25 percent of the population.

Cholesterol is the latest in a long line of dietary demons pursued vigorosly by public-health officials only to be redeemed as nutrition science advances. One of the reasons trans fats found their way into large parts of the U.S. food supply was the government's campaign against products made with lard, prompting foodmakers to instead switch to partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils. These oils turned out to be high in the types of trans fats we now know are more dangerous than animal fats. The government also urged individuals to stop cooking with animal fats and instead use vegetable oils such as corn and soybean oil—both loaded with inflammation-spiking omega-6 fatty acids, which have been much more detrimental to American health than eating butter.

Government guidelines for optimal eating may have similarly screwed Americans over when it comes to fats in general. For years, health officials championed low-fat (and low-cholesterol) diets as optimal, pushing many to try and avoid fat in food as much as possible. But there are tons of different kinds of dietary fats, and a lot of them—particularly polyunsaturated fats of the variety found in fish, nuts, and grass-fed beef—are not just okay but incredibly beneficial for human health. Dietary fat is also necessary to help humans absorb other important nutrients, so a vegetable-filled, vitamin-rich salad actually becomes more nutritious if you add a little olive oil or egg.

Even the story behind saturated fat, characterized for decades as having no redeeming nutritional value, is a lot more complicated than scientists previously thought. A new study published in the journal Open Heart concluded that U.S. and U.K. dietary guidelines condemning saturated fat "should not have been introduced." Research has shown some types of saturated fatty acids are terrible for human health, while others are neutral or even good. As dietary science advances, more and more of this sort of nutritional nuance become apparent, making one-size-fits-all advice of the kind supplied by federal dietary guidelines seem all the more outdated.

So what does the fact that cholesterol problems can be hereditary and some (certainly not most) saturated fatty acids are good, have to do with morbid obesity and foods that are linked to it?

The reality is there is an obesity problem that is disproportionately present among people who have their food bill and their medical bills subsidized by the tax payer based on tax payer income. They can use that money to buy anything except cigarettes, alcohol, and prepared foods. If they want to buy nothing but soda, donuts, cookies and candy they can, and there is no disincentive to do so.

Call me ridiculous, but this scenario doesn't make any sense to me. A tax on junk food isn't anywhere near as preposterous as the current status quo.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Wait what's this? I thought there was no mystery as to what foods are bad for us:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/10/cholesterol-warning-may-be-ditched

The move reflects updated scientific thinking on cholesterol. While high cholesterol levels in the blood can still be a bad health indicator, scientists no longer view high blood cholesterol as a direct result of eating a cholesterol-rich diet, at least not for most people. Genetics may make some individuals more vulnerable to cholesterol in food, but scientists estimate this group only includes about 25 percent of the population.

Cholesterol is the latest in a long line of dietary demons pursued vigorosly by public-health officials only to be redeemed as nutrition science advances. One of the reasons trans fats found their way into large parts of the U.S. food supply was the government's campaign against products made with lard, prompting foodmakers to instead switch to partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils. These oils turned out to be high in the types of trans fats we now know are more dangerous than animal fats. The government also urged individuals to stop cooking with animal fats and instead use vegetable oils such as corn and soybean oil—both loaded with inflammation-spiking omega-6 fatty acids, which have been much more detrimental to American health than eating butter.

Government guidelines for optimal eating may have similarly screwed Americans over when it comes to fats in general. For years, health officials championed low-fat (and low-cholesterol) diets as optimal, pushing many to try and avoid fat in food as much as possible. But there are tons of different kinds of dietary fats, and a lot of them—particularly polyunsaturated fats of the variety found in fish, nuts, and grass-fed beef—are not just okay but incredibly beneficial for human health. Dietary fat is also necessary to help humans absorb other important nutrients, so a vegetable-filled, vitamin-rich salad actually becomes more nutritious if you add a little olive oil or egg.

Even the story behind saturated fat, characterized for decades as having no redeeming nutritional value, is a lot more complicated than scientists previously thought. A new study published in the journal Open Heart concluded that U.S. and U.K. dietary guidelines condemning saturated fat "should not have been introduced." Research has shown some types of saturated fatty acids are terrible for human health, while others are neutral or even good. As dietary science advances, more and more of this sort of nutritional nuance become apparent, making one-size-fits-all advice of the kind supplied by federal dietary guidelines seem all the more outdated.

Fat may contribute to blockage in some,but sugar creates inflammation in the arterial walls which leads to plaque as well. For me i'd take my chances on a higher fat diet preferable more unsaturated and lower sugar. I would go with vegetables,fiber,berries and oats as my primary carbohydrates. If you have diabetes in your family this should be a must do diet. And frigging workout! Burn the damn sugar out of your muscles(weight training&HIIT if you're conditioning and healthy enough for it) and deplete the liver stores as well......this has been your public service Steelers Nation announcement. Be well.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

Providing a productive loving home is not the point. The point is that those kids are much safer living under a bridge than in a home, when is the last time you heard of a bridge burning down?

I think it happened in London a while ago....oh wait....that bridge FELL down....

 

[Ron Burgundy]

So what does the fact that cholesterol problems can be hereditary and some (certainly not most) saturated fatty acids are good, have to do with morbid obesity and foods that are linked to it?

The reality is there is an obesity problem that is disproportionately present among people who have their food bill and their medical bills subsidized by the tax payer based on tax payer income. They can use that money to buy anything except cigarettes, alcohol, and prepared foods. If they want to buy nothing but soda, donuts, cookies and candy they can, and there is no disincentive to do so.

Call me ridiculous, but this scenario doesn't make any sense to me. A tax on junk food isn't anywhere near as preposterous as the current status quo.

I said earlier that a big part of the problem is that unhealthy food is cheap and healthy food is expensive, due in part (IMO) to the govt screwing with the food market. When peoples' money is limited they will naturally seek the most calories per dollar.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

Why would ANYONE WILLINGLY say that taxing ANYTHING is OK? My dad had a rule- NEVER EVER EVER vote for a millage rate increase or a sales tax increase- regardless of what the revenue was supposed to go to. Reason-you just voted to raise your taxes....and once the politicians get their hands on YOUR money, they won't stop.

 

[Troglodyte]

IWhen peoples' money is limited they will naturally seek the most calories per dollar.

They will seek what is tasty. If it's cheap and they don't are about their health or their physique, they'll seek it heavily. I doubt if we increased food stamp allotments we'd see most poor people eating healthier. But I'm cynical that way.

Healthy foods tend to be expensive because they are perishable or unprocessed.

 

[oneforthebus]

So what does the fact that cholesterol problems can be hereditary and some (certainly not most) saturated fatty acids are good, have to do with morbid obesity and foods that are linked to it?

The reality is there is an obesity problem that is disproportionately present among people who have their food bill and their medical bills subsidized by the tax payer based on tax payer income. They can use that money to buy anything except cigarettes, alcohol, and prepared foods. If they want to buy nothing but soda, donuts, cookies and candy they can, and there is no disincentive to do so.

Call me ridiculous, but this scenario doesn't make any sense to me. A tax on junk food isn't anywhere near as preposterous as the current status quo.

I'll try one more time since I really don't feel like repeating the same things over and over anymore. The point is we cannot pinpoint the specific foods that "cause" obesity. The point is the government does not have a great track record at deciding what is best for us. The point is the government has been pushing often inaccurate nutritional guidelines on us for years, while obesity rates have skyrocketed, and you want to give it the power to determine the success and failure of all foods in the marketplace. Preposterous is a good word for it.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I doubt if we increased food stamp allotments we'd see most poor people eating healthier. But I'm cynical that way.

Healthy foods tend to be expensive because they are perishable or unprocessed.

No, I think you're right. People would buy more mac n' cheese instead of making panko-crusted tilapia with steamed vegetables from scratch. The extra work and dishes to wash takes valuable time away from sitting on your porch and talking at full volume into your cell phone all day.

 

[ark steel]

I would expect that lack of proper exercise has as much or more to do with obesity than diet. Do we tax people for not going to the gym daily, too?

 

[Troglodyte]

Why would ANYONE WILLINGLY say that taxing ANYTHING is OK? My dad had a rule- NEVER EVER EVER vote for a millage rate increase or a sales tax increase- regardless of what the revenue was supposed to go to. Reason-you just voted to raise your taxes....and once the politicians get their hands on YOUR money, they won't stop.

I'm saying instead of taxing income tax the cause of obesity. It's like toll roads, the tolls are a tax based on usage. If they proposed funding the PA Turnpike through taxes instead of tolls, the only people who would be in favor of it are the ones who use it frequently.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Why would ANYONE WILLINGLY say that taxing ANYTHING is OK? My dad had a rule- NEVER EVER EVER vote for a millage rate increase or a sales tax increase- regardless of what the revenue was supposed to go to. Reason-you just voted to raise your taxes....and once the politicians get their hands on YOUR money, they won't stop.

That is 100% correct. They see it as a new revenue steam that belongs to them! You never get your money back. They find some so called noble cause and then use it as a weapon against any who would try to repeal the tax. That is how the democrats roll. Tax&spend forever and still always wanting MORE!!!! Eventually you just end up working for the state.