The greatest insult of all is that in this great country so many people cannot afford the most basic of medical care.
This is false. People with jobs generally have health insurance. The poor have Medicaid health insurance. And even if you're too irresponsible to buy health insurance or sign up for Medicaid, you still get health care.
So your "greatest insult of all" is essentially false. You should stop listening to propaganda. Or at least learn to question it.
What if I can't do any work that's worth more than $24,000 a year? What does "want" have to do with it then? People with very low skills, and people who have very little value to offer anyone, can't expect to always get what they want.
If we don't allow low wage jobs, then low skilled people can't get work at all.
And for some other people, an entry level job is an opportunity for them to learn new skills, to increase their value, and eventually get a higher paying job. Prohibiting low wage jobs is a way to stop this before it can even get started.
Yeah... because when you are unemployed and have no money (and the housing market sucks) it's so SUPER easy to move to a place with jobs! Gosh, why didn't people think of that. We could have solved this problem years ago and have a 0% unemployment rate!
Don't even think of doing anything that isn't super easy.
No, my original comment was correct. People like you think of food additives like evil spirits and seek to banish them.
You also want to create food police to enforce your food preferences on people. You want to fine or jail or otherwise punish people to force them to accept your choices instead of freely making their own.
And you're willing to ignore or deny the simplest facts to further your goals.
But you and many others also have a "no we can't" attitude. Many, possibly including you, also have an entitlement mentality. And you have no ideas to solve anything.
Here's an idea: instead of repealing everything passed in the last 120 years, let's repeal a small number of laws that act as a barrier to business in the US. And stop enacting new ones. And then let's see how it goes, and repeal more and/or reinstate one or two as needed.
Or we can keep saying "no we can't" and tell businesses to forget hiring in the US.
How many years should people be imprisoned because they don't agree with your view of what's The Right Sweetener? Do you want your food police to carry guns and break down doors? Should they have HFCS-sniffing dogs?
We'll also have to ban honey and every other product that can sweeten similar to HFCS -- bad for the biochemistry. And someone once told me alcohol could negatively impact biochemistry. That will have to be banned too. And 1000 other things.
But in your original post you didn't say "stop subsidies" you said "ban HFCS". There's no call for a ban. HFCS is no more harmful than honey or apples. Saying otherwise is irrational. Banning of a perfectly safe product is unjust.
We should obviously stop the subsidies. I'm in favor of stopping all subsidies for everything. Corn subsidies can go first.
And obese people should stop eating as much HFCS. And every other sugary or starchy food.
The fast-food/junk-food producers aren't using fructose from apples, but from corn.
The substance is exactly the same. Corn fructose is apple fructose. They are exactly the same.
Maybe I should repeat it again: they are exactly the same.
You don't get HFCS from apples. What part of High Fructose Corn Syrup don't you "get"? Do you say "A corn a day keeps the doctor away?" "As American as corn pie?" "Corn dumplings". "Bobbing for corn?" "Corn Computers?" "Corn Streussel Cheesecake Bars?" "Apple on the Cob?"
You're making my point. Bigotry against corn (or whatever your weird, irrational hangup is) doesn't change the chemical makeup of fructose.
Corn fructose isn't possessed by evil spirits or cursed by voodoo sorcerers either.
Healthcare spending is the result of the existence of more, better treatment options. Instead of dying from a heart attack, you can survive it now. Surviving it is a lot more expensive. You (or someone) must pay a lot of medical bills. You also get to live another 10 years by taking expensive pills, get cancer, and then maybe survive that. The bills just keep on coming.
Surviving that heart attack also leads to higher obesity levels. The dead aren't counted in the obesity statistics.
A ban on all ingredients associated with and linked to obesity should be law.
You are proposing to outlaw almost all foods with calories in them. You can become obese eating almost any energy-dense food -- about 90% of all foods.
This is just nonsense. You guys talk about HFCS and chemicals and hormones the way that tribal peoples talk about evil spirits. If you just say the right words and eat the "clean" foods, you'll be protected from the evil spirits and the sorcerers and the witches lurking out in the darkness.
Fructose is just fruit sugar. It's abundant in apples and pears and other fruits. Also in honey. It's not magic. It's not evil. It's sugar. Too much is bad for you, just like any other sugar or starch.
Please try to either be rational or be quiet. Thanks.
Paying the family is paying MLK. A father should be able to create things for his family. Those things shouldn't be looted the instant he dies. That's one incentive to create: so you can provide for your family after you're gone.
The time should be limited, and I don't necessarily support the ruling that this speech isn't public.
But why should anyone listen to a bunch of self-entitled whiners who offer nothing to anyone? The speech contains a phrase "the content of his character". A lot of people on Slashdot should ponder what that phrase means.
MLK family entitlement: MLK wrote the speech, gave the speech, traveled to the location and earned the audience. He was murdered because of his ideas, but he left the family the rights to his works to provide for them after he was gone. Therefore, pay to use those works. Or don't pay and don't use them.
Difference: Entitled Slashdot user provides nothing of value to anyone, but demands to receive something of value. Meanwhile, the MLK family invites you to mind your own business and not worry about watching the speech if you don't like the price of the transaction.
Let's spend $100 Billion on every idea, no matter how silly or corrupt. It's worth a shot... if you're the recipient of the money and not the one who earned it.
Forcing the manufacturing out of the country allows, among other things, the externalization of pollution.
Wow, really? Forcing manufacturing out of the country because of pollution sounds retarded to me, I would think the jobs would be better for the country.
Since when do environmentalists care about jobs? Or, for that matter, since when do they care about "the country"?
What the hell are you talking about? I can only assume that you're angry that some scientists get government grants and you don't like the conclusions of their research.
And then those research conclusions are used by big government types to tax, to take away choices, and to force people to live The Right Way, according to the "conclusions" of the scientists. Yes.
As long as "science" is the justification to use government force against people, "scientists" will be looked upon as a dangerous enemy by people who don't want to be forced. I'm hoping we can all decide to stop using government force against people and science can go back to being about knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
The jobs were paying $50k a year.
So what? The guys in Muncie were willing to do them for $24,000.
Does making workers take a 50% pay cut make them suddenly lose half their skills?
Does paying them double the rate as the guys in Muncie for exactly the same work magically give them twice the skill?
Back when we made shit here...
My grandfather...
...like it's something new, but the fact is, the war's been raging since fucking 1980...
This country was at it's strongest economically when...
Clearly, living in the past is the answer.
The greatest insult of all is that in this great country so many people cannot afford the most basic of medical care.
This is false. People with jobs generally have health insurance. The poor have Medicaid health insurance. And even if you're too irresponsible to buy health insurance or sign up for Medicaid, you still get health care.
So your "greatest insult of all" is essentially false. You should stop listening to propaganda. Or at least learn to question it.
No "biological studies" say corn fructose is different than honey fructose. You keep missing the point.
Because facts don't matter to you, forcing people to live their lives according to your preferences is all that matters.
There goes everything our (great) grandparents fought for...
So living in the past is the answer? Our ancestors fought, therefore present-day reality doesn't matter.
Want to raise a family on $24,000 a year?
What if I can't do any work that's worth more than $24,000 a year? What does "want" have to do with it then? People with very low skills, and people who have very little value to offer anyone, can't expect to always get what they want.
If we don't allow low wage jobs, then low skilled people can't get work at all.
And for some other people, an entry level job is an opportunity for them to learn new skills, to increase their value, and eventually get a higher paying job. Prohibiting low wage jobs is a way to stop this before it can even get started.
Yeah... because when you are unemployed and have no money (and the housing market sucks) it's so SUPER easy to move to a place with jobs! Gosh, why didn't people think of that. We could have solved this problem years ago and have a 0% unemployment rate!
Don't even think of doing anything that isn't super easy.
No, my original comment was correct. People like you think of food additives like evil spirits and seek to banish them.
You also want to create food police to enforce your food preferences on people. You want to fine or jail or otherwise punish people to force them to accept your choices instead of freely making their own.
And you're willing to ignore or deny the simplest facts to further your goals.
You have a point.
But you and many others also have a "no we can't" attitude. Many, possibly including you, also have an entitlement mentality. And you have no ideas to solve anything.
Here's an idea: instead of repealing everything passed in the last 120 years, let's repeal a small number of laws that act as a barrier to business in the US. And stop enacting new ones. And then let's see how it goes, and repeal more and/or reinstate one or two as needed.
Or we can keep saying "no we can't" and tell businesses to forget hiring in the US.
How many years should people be imprisoned because they don't agree with your view of what's The Right Sweetener? Do you want your food police to carry guns and break down doors? Should they have HFCS-sniffing dogs?
We'll also have to ban honey and every other product that can sweeten similar to HFCS -- bad for the biochemistry. And someone once told me alcohol could negatively impact biochemistry. That will have to be banned too. And 1000 other things.
But in your original post you didn't say "stop subsidies" you said "ban HFCS". There's no call for a ban. HFCS is no more harmful than honey or apples. Saying otherwise is irrational. Banning of a perfectly safe product is unjust.
We should obviously stop the subsidies. I'm in favor of stopping all subsidies for everything. Corn subsidies can go first.
And obese people should stop eating as much HFCS. And every other sugary or starchy food.
The fast-food/junk-food producers aren't using fructose from apples, but from corn.
The substance is exactly the same. Corn fructose is apple fructose. They are exactly the same.
Maybe I should repeat it again: they are exactly the same.
You don't get HFCS from apples. What part of High Fructose Corn Syrup don't you "get"? Do you say "A corn a day keeps the doctor away?" "As American as corn pie?" "Corn dumplings". "Bobbing for corn?" "Corn Computers?" "Corn Streussel Cheesecake Bars?" "Apple on the Cob?"
You're making my point. Bigotry against corn (or whatever your weird, irrational hangup is) doesn't change the chemical makeup of fructose.
Corn fructose isn't possessed by evil spirits or cursed by voodoo sorcerers either.
This is false.
Healthcare spending is the result of the existence of more, better treatment options. Instead of dying from a heart attack, you can survive it now. Surviving it is a lot more expensive. You (or someone) must pay a lot of medical bills. You also get to live another 10 years by taking expensive pills, get cancer, and then maybe survive that. The bills just keep on coming.
Surviving that heart attack also leads to higher obesity levels. The dead aren't counted in the obesity statistics.
The process of metabolizing fructose has a different effect on the bodys hormones than the same number of calories of glucose.
So what? HFCS fructose is the same fructose as in an apple. It's not a magic, evil version of fructose.
A ban on all ingredients associated with and linked to obesity should be law.
You are proposing to outlaw almost all foods with calories in them. You can become obese eating almost any energy-dense food -- about 90% of all foods.
This is just nonsense. You guys talk about HFCS and chemicals and hormones the way that tribal peoples talk about evil spirits. If you just say the right words and eat the "clean" foods, you'll be protected from the evil spirits and the sorcerers and the witches lurking out in the darkness.
Fructose is just fruit sugar. It's abundant in apples and pears and other fruits. Also in honey. It's not magic. It's not evil. It's sugar. Too much is bad for you, just like any other sugar or starch.
Please try to either be rational or be quiet. Thanks.
Hollywood doesn't care about your software. But they do care about the content they spend their lives creating.
Paying the family is paying MLK. A father should be able to create things for his family. Those things shouldn't be looted the instant he dies. That's one incentive to create: so you can provide for your family after you're gone.
The time should be limited, and I don't necessarily support the ruling that this speech isn't public.
But why should anyone listen to a bunch of self-entitled whiners who offer nothing to anyone? The speech contains a phrase "the content of his character". A lot of people on Slashdot should ponder what that phrase means.
Slashdot entitlement: I want, therefore I'm owed.
MLK family entitlement: MLK wrote the speech, gave the speech, traveled to the location and earned the audience. He was murdered because of his ideas, but he left the family the rights to his works to provide for them after he was gone. Therefore, pay to use those works. Or don't pay and don't use them.
Difference: Entitled Slashdot user provides nothing of value to anyone, but demands to receive something of value. Meanwhile, the MLK family invites you to mind your own business and not worry about watching the speech if you don't like the price of the transaction.
I can't immediately get exactly what I want for free, therefore the law is "out of control" and a "nightmare".
It's a total douche move to lobby for subsidies. Period.
Let's spend $100 Billion on every idea, no matter how silly or corrupt. It's worth a shot ... if you're the recipient of the money and not the one who earned it.
Let no one question their feelings for the dirt.
Forcing the manufacturing out of the country allows, among other things, the externalization of pollution.
Wow, really? Forcing manufacturing out of the country because of pollution sounds retarded to me, I would think the jobs would be better for the country.
Since when do environmentalists care about jobs? Or, for that matter, since when do they care about "the country"?
What the hell are you talking about? I can only assume that you're angry that some scientists get government grants and you don't like the conclusions of their research.
And then those research conclusions are used by big government types to tax, to take away choices, and to force people to live The Right Way, according to the "conclusions" of the scientists. Yes.
As long as "science" is the justification to use government force against people, "scientists" will be looked upon as a dangerous enemy by people who don't want to be forced. I'm hoping we can all decide to stop using government force against people and science can go back to being about knowledge.