Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 21, 2012, 09:52 AM   #326
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhett7660 View Post
Encouraging is different than the government stepping in and forcing their encouragement.

I never said Michelle has done that. That was another poster. I was merely commenting on your comment of government limiting what you can do with your body, yet you are for having the government limit what we can put into our body. That is all.[COLOR="#808080"]
.
When did I say I was for the government limiting what we can put into our bodies? I was merely explaining the obvious reasons why Michelle Obama would be encouraging healthier food and excercise.
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 09:53 AM   #327
robanga
macrumors 68000
 
robanga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
Absolutely not. However (and this could be it's own thread), I'm not sure I believe that my taxes should be paying for the healthcare (through medicare/medicaid/higher insurance premiums) for those who have chosen to eat, drink, or smoke themselves into bad health. They are welcome to do what they want to their bodies, but why should I pay for the end result?
Because that slippery slope is not one you want to be on. Who decides what is moderation and what is not? Is there a board that steps in and determines if you made bad choices to get you that ulcer? What about a healthy mental lifestyle? etc. etc.
__________________
Soli Deo gloria
robanga is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 09:59 AM   #328
balamw
Moderator
 
balamw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhett7660 View Post
However I don't like it if they pass a law saying what I can't or can eat or drink. That is all.
So no FDA is needed? Melamine is fine as a milk additive and the government should just butt out?

(Like you I'm just playing devil's advocate here, the territory is full of slopes and they all have their own degree of slipperiness).

B
__________________
MBA (13" 1.7 GHz 128GB), UMBP (15" SD 2.8 GHz), UMB (13" 2.4 GHz), iMac (17" Yonah), 32GB iPad 3 WiFi+LTE, 64 GB iPad WiFi, 32 GB iPhone 5, Airport Extreme
balamw is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 10:07 AM   #329
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhett7660 View Post
No, I am agreeing with encouragement. However I don't like it if they pass a law saying what I can't or can eat or drink. That is all.

I am all for encouragement.....labels.....that is all good.
That is something I've always regarded as necessary. It's not just what people buy for themselves. They buy for their kids as well, and it's important that people at least understand what they are buying.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 10:13 AM   #330
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by robanga View Post
Because that slippery slope is not one you want to be on. Who decides what is moderation and what is not? Is there a board that steps in and determines if you made bad choices to get you that ulcer? What about a healthy mental lifestyle? etc. etc.
I agree about it being a slippery slope (although, I also think you're simplifying things a bit) - it just goes to my point about the many reasons the government has to encourage us to live healthier.
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 10:31 AM   #331
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
Because its NOT the business of the government to tell us what we can and cannot eat.

Man you guys really don't get it.
This is really the subject of a good philosophical debate which has occurred in these forums before (I believe).

Is it all of our rights to become big fat blimps if we want to? How about when the group of large people has an adverse impact on society as a whole? Just don't make others pay for our weight related illnesses? What about lost productivity? Fire'm? How about sugary foods at elementary school. No role for government there?
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 10:36 AM   #332
balamw
Moderator
 
balamw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
How about sugary foods at elementary school. No role for government there?
Food safety? Farm subsidies? No role for government there?

B
__________________
MBA (13" 1.7 GHz 128GB), UMBP (15" SD 2.8 GHz), UMB (13" 2.4 GHz), iMac (17" Yonah), 32GB iPad 3 WiFi+LTE, 64 GB iPad WiFi, 32 GB iPhone 5, Airport Extreme
balamw is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 10:41 AM   #333
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by balamw View Post
Food safety? Farm subsidies? No role for government there?

B
I for one enjoy chewing on the lead paint in all of my cheap products. The results of which may be why I feel that government should play no role in anything, ever. Unless a disaster happens that effects me or those I know directly of course, then I'll bitch and moan that they didn't do enough.

Who needs that damn gubbment?
NT1440 is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 10:53 AM   #334
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
I believe management should have busted the union decades ago, but they did not, so labor costs are way out of line.
So the fact that they had already agreed to wage cuts before is not relevant at all? How many times should workers agree to a wage cut, before they finally stand up and say "NO...fix your end"? Should they just keep cutting down until they are minimum wage?

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine."

Quote:
You guys complain of management bonuses, but the Union demands would gradually increase payroll by 120 million dollars a year over the next 5 years.
Can you source this? I haven't seen anything abut the union demanding increases, just refusing cuts. $120m for 18,000 workers comes to an average of a $6,666 raise for every worker over the next few years. That's pretty insane, and I find it hard to believe that they are asking for that.

Quote:
Hostess stands no chance of surviving that.
They stand no chance of surviving as solely a junk food company, either. Like I said before, I love Hostess products. Yet, I know they are pretty bad for you, hence why I only eat them periodically. If you want to survive as a company, you have to have at least a few products that people will want to buy frequently, not as a one-off reward.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 11:51 AM   #335
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
Can you source this? I haven't seen anything abut the union demanding increases, just refusing cuts. $120m for 18,000 workers comes to an average of a $6,666 raise for every worker over the next few years. That's pretty insane, and I find it hard to believe that they are asking for that.
Of late the conservative playbook is make up BS and look for gullible people to believe you. I'm not saying this is thewitt. I'm saying it smacks of pseudo-facts like you get from Fox.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 12:01 PM   #336
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by robanga View Post
Because that slippery slope is not one you want to be on. Who decides what is moderation and what is not? Is there a board that steps in and determines if you made bad choices to get you that ulcer? What about a healthy mental lifestyle? etc. etc.
a simple solution is raise tax on those items only. aka a sin tax so to speak. Those taxes go to pay those increased cost related to those items.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
Can you source this? I haven't seen anything abut the union demanding increases, just refusing cuts. $120m for 18,000 workers comes to an average of a $6,666 raise for every worker over the next few years. That's pretty insane, and I find it hard to believe that they are asking for that.
The only reason I could see that even being a factor is they want back some of the massive pay cuts they ate to "help" the company while the higher ups gave themselves huge raises and bonuses.

Even then it smell more like they take the first offer that any one with 1/4 of a brain knows is opening and very high and will quickly go down.
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 02:27 PM   #337
rhett7660
macrumors 604
 
rhett7660's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sunny, Southern California
Quote:
Originally Posted by balamw View Post
So no FDA is needed? Melamine is fine as a milk additive and the government should just butt out?

(Like you I'm just playing devil's advocate here, the territory is full of slopes and they all have their own degree of slipperiness).

B
Case and point taken.

Government says smoking is bad and they make the cigarette makers put labels on them, however it is not against the law to smoke them. Against the law to smoke in locations, but not against the law to smoke them.

There is a difference between, the government regulating and checking as opposed to saying sorry you can't smoke it period.

At what point does the reach stop? It is in schools, and now it is convenient stores like 7-11 who can no longer sell the super big gulp of 48oz etc because the state of NY says you can't.
__________________
"It's quite an experience to hold the hand of someone as they move from living to dead."
"Times are looking grim these days, holding on to everything, it's hard to draw the line"
rhett7660 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 02:55 PM   #338
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhett7660 View Post
Case and point taken.

Government says smoking is bad and they make the cigarette makers put labels on them, however it is not against the law to smoke them. Against the law to smoke in locations, but not against the law to smoke them.

There is a difference between, the government regulating and checking as opposed to saying sorry you can't smoke it period.

At what point does the reach stop? It is in schools, and now it is convenient stores like 7-11 who can no longer sell the super big gulp of 48oz etc because the state of NY says you can't.
As others have suggested, the obvious solution is taxation. We could just fund single-payer healthcare with ascending taxes on garbage food (and killing some subsidies). After all, that is kind of the way several states are going with tobacco. The trick, of course, is to determine what should be taxed, by how much, without lobbying, bribery and kick-backs. And restaurants, there is a whole nother ball of worms there.

But I still want my Tiger Tails.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 03:06 PM   #339
LethalWolfe
macrumors Demi-God
 
LethalWolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
As others have suggested, the obvious solution is taxation. We could just fund single-payer healthcare with ascending taxes on garbage food (and killing some subsidies).
A problem with that is it will be a very regressive tax and could cause more problems than it fixes. Even though the poor have less money to spend on food they have a higher rate of obesity because they generally have less access to affordable, healthy food.

A good start would be to end government subsidies that allow junk food to be made so inexpensively and possibly create subsidies to make healthier food more affordable, but good luck prying subsidies away from the companies that have built a very lucrative business model that depends on them.
__________________
Looking For Lenny - documentary about comedian Lenny Bruce's timeless impact on stand-up comedy & Free Speech.
Netflix, iTunes, Amazon
LethalWolfe is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 03:37 PM   #340
balamw
Moderator
 
balamw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by LethalWolfe View Post
A good start would be to end government subsidies that allow junk food to be made so inexpensively
That's why I brought up farm subsidies as well. They are also part of the equation. HFCS has displaced other ingredients in A LOT of food because it is cheap, it is cheap because we subsidize the production of corn ...

So on the one hand "the government" doesn't want you eating junk food while they support companies to make it in the first place.

B
__________________
MBA (13" 1.7 GHz 128GB), UMBP (15" SD 2.8 GHz), UMB (13" 2.4 GHz), iMac (17" Yonah), 32GB iPad 3 WiFi+LTE, 64 GB iPad WiFi, 32 GB iPhone 5, Airport Extreme
balamw is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 03:39 PM   #341
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by robanga View Post
Bingo - The picking and choosing of what some people want out of their government amazes me in its contradictions.
This isn't necessarily a contradiction. There's a balance between intrusion (to protect ourselves and others) and restricting ourselves needlessly. I see limitations on drinking, especially time place and manner restrictions as beneficial. Maybe a little league game isn't the best place for $.99 beers, but restricting the sale of beer county-wide is too restrictive.

Likewise, with food, limiting the sale and advertising of certain foods (no donut ads during children's cartoons) doesn't put in place a meaningful restriction, but banning donuts does.

We can balance restrictions with benefits and when in doubt, look for the least restrictions.

Quote:
...It reminds me of how many people decry chains like Walmart as being evil and killing main street businesses but then happily go online and buy things from Amazon.
Yeah, Amazon tends to feel progressive and technological adept that people forget both are in the margin-cutting business and neither pays their workers a living wage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhett7660 View Post
Encouraging is different than the government stepping in and forcing their encouragement.

I never said Michelle has done that. That was another poster. I was merely commenting on your comment of government limiting what you can do with your body, yet you are for having the government limit what we can put into our body. That is all...

No, I am agreeing with encouragement. However I don't like it if they pass a law saying what I can't or can eat or drink. That is all.

I am all for encouragement.....labels.....that is all good.

Yeah, if a company can successfully sell a pizza ringed with cheesy dough, I don't have any interest in restricting it. I do however have an issue if that cheese is made by a process that's likely to cause cancer. So, it's about balancing freedom and health risks.

Labels at least arm the consumer who wants to make choices (no more submarine calories or hidden allergens) and allows those who just want a deep-fried Twinkie to eat the damned thing.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 04:51 PM   #342
rhett7660
macrumors 604
 
rhett7660's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sunny, Southern California
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
This isn't necessarily a contradiction. There's a balance between intrusion (to protect ourselves and others) and restricting ourselves needlessly. I see limitations on drinking, especially time place and manner restrictions as beneficial. Maybe a little league game isn't the best place for $.99 beers, but restricting the sale of beer county-wide is too restrictive.

Likewise, with food, limiting the sale and advertising of certain foods (no donut ads during children's cartoons) doesn't put in place a meaningful restriction, but banning donuts does.

We can balance restrictions with benefits and when in doubt, look for the least restrictions.



Yeah, Amazon tends to feel progressive and technological adept that people forget both are in the margin-cutting business and neither pays their workers a living wage.




Yeah, if a company can successfully sell a pizza ringed with cheesy dough, I don't have any interest in restricting it. I do however have an issue if that cheese is made by a process that's likely to cause cancer. So, it's about balancing freedom and health risks.

Labels at least arm the consumer who wants to make choices (no more submarine calories or hidden allergens) and allows those who just want a deep-fried Twinkie to eat the damned thing.
I agree. However, can't the same be said about smoking or or liquor?
__________________
"It's quite an experience to hold the hand of someone as they move from living to dead."
"Times are looking grim these days, holding on to everything, it's hard to draw the line"
rhett7660 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 11:44 PM   #343
MorphingDragon
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The World Inbetween
Send a message via Skype™ to MorphingDragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhett7660 View Post
I agree. However, can't the same be said about smoking or or liquor?
Alcohol and Nicotine are drugs. Plastic Cheese is not.
MorphingDragon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 11:57 PM   #344
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorphingDragon View Post
Alcohol and Nicotine are drugs. Plastic Cheese is not.
Alcohol is a preservative. The tradition of beer and wine goes back to the days before refrigerators and icehouses, where, if you wanted fruit juice, you drank wine because fruit juice went bad very fast. And in the olden days, beer was a staple, kind of a liquid bread that everyone drank for nourishment, though it was pretty different from the modern yellow fizz and not much stronger than o'douls.

The hard stuff, well that was for getting wasted. And wounds.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2012, 06:12 PM   #345
MorphingDragon
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The World Inbetween
Send a message via Skype™ to MorphingDragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
Alcohol is a preservative.
Alcohol is also interstellar.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...448..232C
MorphingDragon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2012, 12:59 PM   #346
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhett7660 View Post
I agree. However, can't the same be said about smoking or or liquor?
Well, as I said, it's about balancing freedom and health risks. We know that cigarettes cause cancer, so now the question is how much do we restrict that usage? In the case of cigarettes, we have age restrictions, warnings, and taxes. So, we've regulated that usage rather than restrict it. We do the same thing with alcohol, including requiring licenses to sell both items.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2012, 01:56 PM   #347
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
Because its NOT the business of the government to tell us what we can and cannot eat.
But apparently it is in the business of the government to tell people who they can and cannot marry, what decisions a woman can make regarding her body, and whether or not I can ingest an herb called marijuana inside my own home. Right?

Quote:
Man you guys really don't get it.
Speak for yourself.
zioxide is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2012, 04:05 PM   #348
balamw
Moderator
 
balamw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England, USA
Just dropping a link to a column from today's LA Times.

Poor management, not union intransigence, killed Hostess

Quote:
Let's get a few things clear. Hostess didn't fail for any of the reasons you've been fed. It didn't fail because Americans demanded more healthful food than its Twinkies and Ho-Hos snack cakes. It didn't fail because its unions wanted it to die.

It failed because the people that ran it had no idea what they were doing. Every other excuse is just an attempt by the guilty to blame someone else.
The article paints a rather unflattering picture of Hostess management and their record over many years that led to the demise of this company.

B
__________________
MBA (13" 1.7 GHz 128GB), UMBP (15" SD 2.8 GHz), UMB (13" 2.4 GHz), iMac (17" Yonah), 32GB iPad 3 WiFi+LTE, 64 GB iPad WiFi, 32 GB iPhone 5, Airport Extreme
balamw is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2012, 05:17 PM   #349
Zombie Acorn
macrumors 65816
 
Zombie Acorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
If this company didn't have unions and just kept slightly above minimum wage workers in line with their skill sets then Hostess wouldn't be going out of business. The conveyor belt union needs to be destroyed.

Im sure all these "bakers" will be fine though, they can just go start their own bakeries..

assuming they know how to bake.
__________________
--2.6 C2Q 4gb DDR3 GTX 260-Win 7--
--2.0 CE Macbook Alum-Leopard--
Zombie Acorn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2012, 05:20 PM   #350
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
If this company didn't have unions and just kept slightly above minimum wage workers in line with their skill sets then Hostess wouldn't be going out of business. The conveyor belt union needs to be destroyed.

Yet the link provided in post #348 seems to contradict everything you've said here. I'd tend to believe that more than your opinion.

BL.
bradl is online now   2 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Labor Unions Huntn Politics, Religion, Social Issues 96 Apr 26, 2014 01:01 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC