Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ocrenter
Participantsdr, any idea what this guy was saying before the bubble burst 4-5 year ago?
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Sounds like you guys live in a s-ithole…
Maybe you should have consulted with someone who lives close to the border and is not at all familiar with the neighborhood before you bought there…….[/quote]
Not only that but these guys are wayyyy out in the boonies.
Participant[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=ocrenter]
2-4 medium sized oranges for 8 oz, typical drinking glass at 16 oz, that’s 4-8 oranges.[/quote]
I get that fresh oranges have more than the juice, but what about this quote from you?:
“yet a single glass of OJ average out to sugar equivalent of about 6-8 oranges”.
A serving of juice is 8 oz, not 16. But your math still fails.[/quote]
I never specified “a glass of 8 oz OJ”. A glass is not a specific measurement. A cup is.
A typical glass, like I mentioned, is 2 cups, or 16 oz.
I cant even find a 8 oz glass anywhere in my house.
Btw, you are missing the main point of the argument. Let’s just go with 1 cup of OJ is 2-4 oranges, the point is still valid. You can drink down that cup in a single gulp, completely devoid of fiber that would at least block some sugar absorption. Giving you a nice sugar spike to stimulate the insulin pathway. In the meantime continue to think you are doing something healthy because that’s what sunkist told you. Go right on ahead.
Participant[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=ocrenter]
the processing to make the OJ significantly concentrate the amount of sugar.
because of the fiber naturally in oranges (which serve as fillers), no one will ever eat more than 2 at a time. yet a single glass of OJ average out to sugar equivalent of about 6-8 oranges, all without those pesky fiber to interfere with absorption.[/quote]
A glass of OJ has about twice the amount of sugar of a medium orange. Two oranges would be the equivalent to a glass. It’s nowhere close to 6-8 times as much sugar.
http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-fruit-vegetable-juices-orange_f-ZmlkPTEwNDg5MQ.html
2-4 medium sized oranges for 8 oz, typical drinking glass at 16 oz, that’s 4-8 oranges.
June 2, 2012 at 11:13 AM in reply to: How are people dumber than us going to make out with their 401(k)s? #744840Participant[quote=flu]
Max limit on 401k is $16.5k per year if you are not self employed (IE w2 at a company)
Married couple can do that twice though.[/quote]
More reason to maximize the 401 contribution.
There are some folks that can contribute to keogh and 401k, thus getting out of the highest bracket altogether.
June 2, 2012 at 9:07 AM in reply to: How are people dumber than us going to make out with their 401(k)s? #744836ParticipantFor all the problems with the 401k and 403b and keogh, they are simply extremely attractive with our progressive tax system. And this will force people to continue dumping money into the system.
A ponzi scheme would only be a ponzi scheme if they eventually run out of that continuing input.
Assuming someone pulls in $250k. If that person dump $35k into the retirement funds, they escape the over 40% taxation on that $35k.
How many people are going to be in that over 40% bracket after retirement? Even if they are forced to withdraw from their 401k.
Even if that money makes ZERO return, that is still better than the reduction to 60 cents on the dollar post tax.
ParticipantA lot of it is interest rate driven too. Jumbo now down to 4.125 with zero point. I’ve seen an institution still using the old 625k limit, at interest rate of 3.75.
Mortgage on a 30% down, million dollar 2700 would only be $3300.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=ocrenter]why can’t you see the parallel with smoking and alcohol, where we do not ban the items but we at least put in some breaks in the system and at least block advertisement aimed at kids.[/quote]
I do see those parallels. I don’t really like those laws either. I believe in Darwin.
Enforcing things like this are expensive, time-consuming, not effective, and not our right.
For me, the effectiveness, or effects of something like this are not even up for discussion – We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is dictating the sugar intake of individuals not a clear violation of these rights,m regardless of the intent or outcome ?[/quote]
If we are in China, a land without MediCal, Medicare, or mandate to treat the very sick or dying, I would totally agree with you.
This goes back to the earlier health care debate. It is a case of all or nothing. We either do a better job with prevention by increasing cost of bad food (via ending of corn/grain subsidies) and eliminating children directed advertisement and enforce calorie info adjacent to pricing, or we eliminate MediCal, Medicare, and the mandate to treat the very sick and dying. I’m ok with either one of he approach. But we can’t be stuck in the middle, this is how we’ll go bankrupt.
Participant[quote=AN]
So does, sex, excerise, listen to soothing music, spicy food, sun light, laugh, cry, and chocolate.Again your crack and sugar analogy is ludicrousness.
Even if I agree with your premise, it’s impossible to regulate. Unlike tobacco, which doesn’t go into anything else. If you attack the root of the sweet problem, which is sugar and not soda, and tax it, then you all of a sudden introduce artificial food inflation, since sugar is in a lot of different things. Which mean you’ll be hurting the poor and middle class the most, since food cost will affect them the most.
If your goal is to stamp out obesity, then sugar shouldn’t be your own target. Work hours, vacation days, portion size, fat, complex carbohydrate, video games, computers, and many other should have the same amount of scrutiny. After all, if we go back to single income family and mom make home cook meals for dinner and dad and kids brown bag for lunch, then the obesity probably would probably be a non-issue or at least drastically reduced. Also, if kids go outside to play like they used to, instead of sitting in front of the TV or computer, then they would burn off the sugar they consumed.[/quote]
You can not refine and process sex and exercise. You can not box up sex and put a tiger on it and advertise to kids with the tiger saying “they’reeeee ggggrrreeeaaaatttttt.” can you tell me how many commercials on “exercise” a kid sees during Saturday morning cartoons? Compare that to how many commercials kids see on sugary food and drinks.
The point you keep missing here is crack ultimately came from a plant, it is the processing that eventually made it so potent and addictive and deadly. it is the cheapness that made the epidemic of addiction so widespread. This is the same problem with processed food. The processing made the food potent and addictive and deadly, and the cheapness made the epidemic of obesity so widespread.
You are absolutely right, this is going to the hardest battle yet. We won against tobacco and alcohol primarily because these products can be separated into a restricted box, and people ultimately do not need to smoke and drink. Regulation of food would be difficult, Broomberg’s attemp is a good example of the type of problems that can be encountered.
I’ve already mentioned some of the things that can be done, someone mentioned these are no brainers, but the problem is the food lobby kills these attempts at every corner by placing 100% responsibility at the consumer level. If you understand the parallel wih crack, tobacco, and alcohol, you can see the responsibility is more 50/50.
These are just few things
–end corn and grain subsidies, that’s 20 billion righ there. But republicans will fight it hard.
–eliminate advertisement to children. The food lobby will say it is the job of parents to regulate their children.
–mandatory calories info next to every food/drink related advertisement, in addition to calorie info adjacent to prices on menus. Remember the right also fought hard against this when CA introduced a variation of this.
–increased nutrition education in school in regard to addictive potential of overly processed food.
–change the type of food served in schools.
–surcharge on extra calories. An entree that exceeds 600 calories will start incurring a surcharge. This may lead to restaurants pushing buy 1 get 2. But if it’s on another plate, more likely for people to box it up for the next meal than consuming it right there.Participant[quote=AN]So we’re comparing food to crack now? I guess I have no rebuttal to that.[/quote]
sugar activates the same regions of the brain as cocaine.
The key here is introduction to the population of extremely plentiful and very cheap highly processed food and drinks rich in fat and sugar.
The effect is similar to when the inner city population was introduced to extremely plentiful and very cheap highly processed crack.
In the case of crack, the addiction rate skyrocketed. In the case of cheap high calorie processed food and drinks, the obesity rate skyrocketed.
Participant[quote=desmond]If you’re worried about your OJ consumption
“just dew it:nice!
Participant[quote=AN]How many restaurant owners do you know? I know a few mom&pop fast food restaurant owners and it’s nothing like you just described. Portion size are larger is because it’s cheaper to make larger portion and you charge more since the portion size is larger. It’s simple economic. Customers also will feel like that restaurant provide good value, so they’ll come back.
Regarding salt. Salty food taste better than bland food. So, unless you’re a perfect cook, it’s smarter to err on the side of salty vs bland.
People who are not well off like to think they get the most for their money. Which is why you see mid to low end restaurants, chains, and fast food tend to have large portion. While if you go to high end places, the portion size are not big at all. They are also not salty at all.[/quote]
the mom and pop restaurants do not have the marketing and research departments to push the salt and push the quantity. but they end up pushing the salt and pushing the quantity because those two things in the end serve them financially.
I do not think we actually disagree here.
the corporate food world and the mom and pop restaurant owners reach the same conclusion, which is portion size and heavy on the salt equate profit.
This is my point.
The other points you completely bypass, which is the large portions and the salt cause us to naturally eat more. This is more on a hormonal and chemical level.
So now you have a win-win scenario for the food industry.
–they can dial up the salt and dial up the portions
–food tastes better, customers think they get more bang for the bucks, and at the same time, the profit goes up
–but when the customers get sick and are on 4-5 meds in order to maintain this habit, we can’t point fingers at the food industry at all, because it is 100% the fault of the customer.
–and don’t try to limit advertisement to kids, that’s restricting their freedom of speech.
–and don’t force them to put on calorie info, that’s suppressing growth.this is a very good set up.
can you imagine if a crack dealer gets the same free pass like that?
–we process the cocaine into crack because it is more addictive and cheaper
–the customer gets a better high, and they also get more bang for their bucks.
–but when the customer shows up in the ER with a heart attack, we can’t point the finger at the dealer at all, because the addict is 100% responsible.Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=ocrenter]the problem is a bit more complex than simply personal choice.
if this problem is simply personal choice, then why are 2/3 of all Americans are making the wrong choices now, vs 1/3 making the wrong choices 30 years ago?
[/quote]Doesn’t really matter if personal choice works or not. It’s personal choice. The most important freedom to protect. If the personal choices of others don’t work for you, there’s nothing you can rightfully do about it.
[quote=ocrenter]
the problem here is sugar in large quantities can be highly addictive. [/quote]
Food is addictive. Lets ban it.
Same reasoning.[/quote]where did I say I support the ban?
your response is so elementary.
why can’t you see the parallel with smoking and alcohol, where we do not ban the items but we at least put in some breaks in the system and at least block advertisement aimed at kids.
Participanthey, I’m refinancing once again as well.
I’m looking at a full $1000 per month reduction in mortgage cost compared to 3 years ago when we purchased.
-
AuthorPosts