That's cool. Sounds like my 80s childhood. We're hoping, at least, our son will get into computer programmer or technology.
Although all of West is getting fatty two countries stand out; UK and US. I always wondered why this is the case. 50% of the adult population being obese is fu*ked up. Surely they must've just lumped overweight and obese together?
I go there sometimes. In fact, I was just there with my mother yesterday. I don't live in a big city so our Walmart isn't so bad. My mother and I were just talking about how some of the little stores that used to be in town have disappeared though and how kind of sad it is that the huge conglomerates like Walmart, Stop & Shop, etc., have taken over ALL the business in our small town.
We used to have a little meat market in town that went out of business when I was a teenager. We used to have a cute little general store, a couple of clothes stores (I remember getting my red shorts for gym at one of them - we had to wear red shorts), and some other unique little mom and pop type stores which don't exist anymore. In town where those stores were, it's now mostly banks, restaurants and gas stations. - - - Updated - - - Seemed like people were a lot less weird when I was young.
Yeah, well, I think you need to be a little less cryptic all the time, but I know that ain't happening.
A Department store is not a Boutique shop.It is a big store with DIFFERENT departments.Therefore the term ... Department Store. You are thinking of special stores like a Men's Clothing store { Brooks Bros. }. Or a Jewelry store.Those are NOT department stores.In a big mall you have many little shops and maybe a few department stores. Do I really need to educate further.
Interesting. Yeah, I suppose our foods intake could be very different also, though fast food is available everywhere now. True, Europe and the UK have likewise seen obesity on the rise, so I guess.. It's really a shame and kind of conundrum - how do we address the problem? We can't very well force people to eat better.
Yeah, I know what a department store is, and I'm talking about high-end department stores like Barney's, Saks, Nordstroms, Neiman Marcus, Lord & Taylors. We have them all over Bergen county. I don't know what I said that made you think I didn't know the definition of a department store. [EDIT] On second thought, I'm done with you before you end up getting me in trouble. You're getting iggied, man. Your dumb posts are tiresome.
My wife just bought me a cashmere winter beanie. Holy (*)(*)(*)(*), is it soft, and (*)(*)(*)(*)ing warm, too.
My solution is to impose so-called sin taxes on unhealthy habits, and especially unhealthy foods; not as a way to control behavior, but to pay for the associated cost of health care. It's a pay as you go, and as you chose, form of health insurance. It always amuses me to see obese people complaining about the cost of health care. Obesity and unhealthy habits are much of what drives the cost of health care. And we have a avalanche of costs looming as Americans keep getting fatter.
Is it? While these things will create more need for medical services, I'm not sure that the inflated costs of healthcare could be blamed on them.
It's pretty bad. Even smaller chains have gone under, not to mention a few large ones as well. I don't want every store to be a giant corporate entity owned and operated by the same few conglomerates.
Sure it is. Diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure create huge demand. There are other factors driving cost as well. But if Joe has a heart attack, or has to have his leg amputated due to diabetes, and goes on disability, you and I pay for it through our insurance costs and taxes. This is why I'm a big fan of sin taxes. It is the best way to ensure that the government doesn't start to limit our choices due to costs. As it stands now, I can make an argument that I should be able to dictate your lifestyle because I have to help pay for it. However, if we paid a tax at the point of purchase, we can all pay for our own choices and be free of government interference in our lives. Interestingly, I've done the calculation myself. A $2 a pack tax on cigarettes would pay for all the associated health care costs of smoking. Cigarette taxes are up to $7 a pack but it doesn't go to health care. That is just big brother trying to control people's behavior.
I guess if the sin tax really covers the costs so that I'm not robbed by Uncle Sam to pay for their care, then good enough for me.
I think it is critical that we go this direction or we will start seeing more and more laws regulating our behavior. The same argument was used to justify the seat belt laws: If I have to help pay for it, I can tell you how to live.
Forget the department Store theatrics.My point of the thread was that people seem to suffer from their socio-economic condition.That wasn't the case so much in the 40's and 50's. Many of the poor in that era had little money but maintained their health and appearance.I guess what I'm sayin' is that TOO many Wal*mart shoppers are outright Slobs.I mean,dirty and slovenly and unkempt. Plus their skin,hair and teeth seem about the same. It doesn't cost a lot to take care of oneself. But then if one's parents are slobs then it makes sense. Parents pass on from one generation to the next certain habits and rules of decorum. Like ya don't go out in public wearing jammies { pajamas }. Or go to Church with Sweats and tennis shoes.
I'm all right with seatbelt laws. They're there, there's no reason not to use them. It's a shame that some morons need to coerced into taking such a sensible precaution so readily provided to them.
I have a huge problem with regulating personal choices. Obviously all children should be belted in. But if someone doesn't want to use a seat belt, it should be their choice. But that's not the case because of the same reason I argue for sin taxes: Your choice could cost me money. The danger is that all law is based on precedent. Laws like this set the precedent for the government to regulate your choices. Why not impose Federal laws mandating how we eat, how much we exercise, what activities we can choose. Why not ban all fast foods and sugar products. Why not ban alcohol and cigarettes? These all come under the same logic as seat belt laws: Your choices can cost me money. This is a very dangerous precedent to follow. So while I always wear a seat belt, I have a real problem with the principles on which the law is based. Sin taxes can block the logic for this threat to liberty and the right of choice. It's funny to consider that there is already a sin tax for those who refuse to use a seat belt: It is called a ticket. I don't think the fine escalates for multiple violations, so on the average I guess you do have a choice to avoid seat belt use if you are willing to pay the tax.
The government regulates operating a motor vehicle. Seatbelt laws are, in my view, a component of that, and so this is different from, say, restricting or banning consumables. We certainly wouldn't want anarchy when it comes to driving.
How do you pose a threat to me if you don't wear a seat belt? Laws governing motor vehicle use should only address threats to other people. Speed limits, drunk driving, unsafe operations, even a failed taillight ticket, are all intended to protect the public. You seem to have the "its a good idea so it ought to be a law" mentality. I am firmly rooted in the philosophy that laws are not inherently a good thing. And the threat of government control of our lives is ever looming. The legal justification for everything I've suggested already exists. We are one populist movement away from losing the right to choose our lifestyles; including our choice of foods and activities. The writing is already on the wall.
