Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9290
This and everything else he did was fantastic.dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:13 pm Ricky Gervais eating the Left:
https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/1 ... 89632?s=20
) won't care.Au contraire!Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:03 pm Nice! Of course Biden's lap dogs (or Vinny's lap cats
https://nypost.com/2020/01/18/how-five- ... nnections/
Whoops!“We Don’t Want to Scare People Off, So You Kinda Have to Feel it Out Before You Get into the Crazy Stuff…More, More Extreme Organizations and Stuff Like Antifa, You Know You Were Talking About Yellow Vests and All That; But, You Know We’re Kinda Keeping That, Keeping That on the Back-Burner for Right Now.”
I think the argument goes like this, "I don't care what food you buy with your own money, but when you're taking my money I get a say in the matter."sophie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.
But, MangoMan's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.
I largely agree with your point, but there's still a slippery slope there. And some perverse incentives. For example, the way the feds mandated the national 55MPH speed limit and the drinking age of 21. It was through highway grants. Basically, the feds took a bunch of money from people which states could have taken, then offered it back to the states in the form of grants with all these strings attached. An end-around around the Constitution, really.Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:12 amI think the argument goes like this, "I don't care what food you buy with your own money, but when you're taking my money I get a say in the matter."sophie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.
But, MangoMan's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.
I’m against micromanaging a la Michael Bloomberg and soda. Just playing devil’s advocate, though, is it the intervention that led to diabetes’ spread or just something that was bound to happen with a rise in prosperity? I guess we were already prosperous in the 70s, but we had to stand up even to play video games.sophie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.
But, MangoMan's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.
Someday I might provide a full answer to your devil's advocate question, but in the meantime...yes, there is a very large body of evidence that the intervention led to the diabetes epidemic.dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:53 pmI’m against micromanaging a la Michael Bloomberg and soda. Just playing devil’s advocate, though, is it the intervention that led to diabetes’ spread or just something that was bound to happen with a rise in prosperity? I guess we were already prosperous in the 70s, but we had to stand up even to play video games.sophie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.
But, MangoMan's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.
I know the food pyramid has turned out to be a very poor guideline. Does that count as part of the intervention?
People on SNAP are going to find a way to drink Pepsi and eat Pringles no matter what is done with SNAP. Even so, the one justification I can think of for trying to impose restrictions is medical savings down the line. Like with the pyramid, we won’t get everything right, but I don’t think we’re going to find out in the future that soda is actually good for us. (Or, if you like Woody Allen’s ‘Sleeper’, chocolate cake).
The reason the subsidy exists is that people are now required to buy something that they cannot afford. "Pay your own way" doesn't really make sense there, does it? That can only work if the requirement to purchase is removed.MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:05 pmAnd what exactly is the problem with requiring at least some improvement in how people care for themselves if they get a subsidy? Jeez, the government intrudes on every aspect of our lives already, so I think this would be minor. And I'm with Maddy, if you don't like the requirement, don't accept the subsidy. Pay your own way and then do whatever you want.Xan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:53 pm Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.
The subsidy cutoff for single people is $48,560. The median income for individuals (that I found, anyway) is $31,099.
So right now, today, this line of reasoning has the government micromanaging the lives of a large majority of people in the United States.
You really don't want the government dictating how to stay healthy! Standard American Diet, healthy whole grains at the top! Limit your meat, eggs and saturated fat! That has worked out sooo well! Have a bowl of heart healthy cereal with a couple slices of heart healthy whole grain bread and top it off with another 20-30g of sugar in your heart healthy OJ! What could go wrong?
So if you can't have a libertarian paradise, your second choice is a Communist dystopia?MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:15 pmAll true, but you proved my point. It's all government regulation on every aspect of our lives. So why not add in a health requirement? Every little bit would help. Or, otherwise, get rid of all the regulations, and leave us alone.Xan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:11 pmThe reason the subsidy exists is that people are now required to buy something that they cannot afford. "Pay your own way" doesn't really make sense there, does it? That can only work if the requirement to purchase is removed.MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:05 pmAnd what exactly is the problem with requiring at least some improvement in how people care for themselves if they get a subsidy? Jeez, the government intrudes on every aspect of our lives already, so I think this would be minor. And I'm with Maddy, if you don't like the requirement, don't accept the subsidy. Pay your own way and then do whatever you want.Xan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:53 pm Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.
The subsidy cutoff for single people is $48,560. The median income for individuals (that I found, anyway) is $31,099.
So right now, today, this line of reasoning has the government micromanaging the lives of a large majority of people in the United States.
I guess the requirement was sort of removed with a wink and a nod, "we won't enforce it" kind of thing. Which still isn't great. And there are still a bunch of requirements on the "insurance" products that are available: cheaper, catastrophic insurance is illegal.
Somebody wants to buy catastrophic insurance, and can't because of the government. He can't afford the "insurance" that is available, because of the government. He buys a subsidized plan because what else can he do? Presto, now you've turned formerly self-sufficient people into those whom you can tell what to eat and do.
This was the big argument against Obamacare in the first place, of course.
— The Week / quoted bits from ‘Yale Daily News’Yale University is scrapping its renowned freshman course “Introduction to Art History”... in response to “student uneasiness” about the “overwhelmingly white, straight, European and male” artists featured.
Because the government is absorbing as many people as it can into the "subsidized" class. You eventually have one set of rules for the "have"s and one set for the "have not"s, with an ever-expanding set of "have not"s in which you may one day find yourself.MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:00 pmNo. I'm not really seeing the leap to Communism here.
Since we agree that our government is not going to stop adding more regulations to our lives, how is it a tragedy (or Communism) to expect some kind of concession from those who the government subsidizes? I see this as basically the same argument that if you are able-bodied and receiving welfare, you should be working community service of some sort.