Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Soda for Food StampsFollow

#277 Jan 11 2013 at 4:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
601 posts
Watching you guys argue with Gbaji made me think of this from conservapedia.
#278 Jan 11 2013 at 5:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Siesen wrote:
Watching you guys argue with Gbaji made me think of this from conservapedia.

Oh Dear God.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#279 Jan 11 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
******
49,823 posts
gbaji wrote:
As far as I know, I'm the only one who's provided any external source of data to support his position in this thread and the only one to present a coherent argument, using data, to support his conclusions.
"As far as I know" is your code for that you outright ignored everyone else, isn't it? Smiley: laugh Well, let me be the first to say congratulations on actually posting where you got your data from. It's still statistically irrelevant and doesn't prove what I said wrong after countless thousands other threads where you vehemently refused to do so, but it's a start that won't last.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#280 Jan 11 2013 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Siesen wrote:
Watching you guys argue with Gbaji made me think of this from conservapedia.


Not... sure... if intentionally... ironic... Smiley: frown
#281 Jan 11 2013 at 4:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
As far as I know, I'm the only one who's provided any external source of data to support his position in this thread and the only one to present a coherent argument, using data, to support his conclusions.
"As far as I know" is your code for that you outright ignored everyone else, isn't it?


No. It means that I can't say for certain that no one else provided an external source of data, and I'm not going to hinge my entire statement based on that. See, if I don't say something like that, and it turns out that one person somewhere in the thread posted a link, nutters will come out of the woodwork, quote the link and declare me wrong. I've run into the "if you're wrong about one thing, you're wrong about everything" argument often enough to be careful about making absolute statements. Doubly so when they aren't necessary to make my point.

I've provided links to sources supporting my position. That should at least put me equal to anyone else who has (if anyone has), and well above all the people who haven't. So forgive me if I find the repeated claims that I never provide sources somewhat jarring in this context.

Quote:
Well, let me be the first to say congratulations on actually posting where you got your data from. It's still statistically irrelevant and doesn't prove what I said wrong after countless thousands other threads where you vehemently refused to do so, but it's a start that won't last.


Honestly? Why should I bother to continue to post links to sources then? You ignore them when I do anyway (or just dismiss them without discussion as you're doing right now). Then, in a monumental display of self delusion, you return right back to the "you never provide sources" claim. How about addressing the data and sources I provided in this thread and leave claims about other threads elsewhere? Can you do that?

Edited, Jan 11th 2013 2:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#282 Jan 11 2013 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:
How about addressing the data and sources I provided in this thread and leave claims about other threads elsewhere? Can you do that?


**** no! It is much more enjoyable watching you throw a hissy every time someone catches one of your many, many slip-ups.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#283 Jan 11 2013 at 10:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:
Honestly? Why should I bother to continue to post links to sources then? You ignore them when I do anyway (or just dismiss them without discussion as you're doing right now).


You mean like the link you gave me on a study done determining ones ability to feel secure in providing food to a family? The one where quotes you pulled contradicted what your point was....the very point you linked to support your claims that food stamps aren't really needed cause people can work for food like your po' family did.

Meanwhile said that food stamps are working, however the gap still leaves them on the list of low food security, despite the fact food stamps do make people feel more secure.

The cite you linked comparing the values to showing that 3 distinct income brackets all fell below the governments intended level of food security. Showing that while food stamps help they are not closing the gap they intend to close.

I have already addressed all this though, after it being pointed out you either did not read the article, or grossly misunderstood what the article said, and just pecked through to find quotes you could use in nonsensical order to make a point, you decided to whine about how no one ever reads your articles and responds to discuss. Of course I imagine you assumed I would not read the article, and thus be able to blow holes throughout your interpretation of it.

You don't like facts because you lack the mental capacity to understand what you are trying to read, and it shows in your complete lack of understanding of a vast majority of what is discussed here. You try to cover your inept understanding by using a lot of words, you hope people get lost in the bullsh*t and sh*tty analogies and forget the original point.

If you read half as much as your brain sperges on a keyboard, you might actually be able to A) Learn something of what you are talking about, and B)Actually be able to back it up with relative support. Instead of picking through an article in direct conflict with your own position.



Edited, Jan 12th 2013 12:38am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#284 Jan 12 2013 at 1:18 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Food is an incredibly inelastic product. People will buy enough so that they don't actually starve. This is why we use terms like "food insecurity" btw. Almost no one starves in the US because of poverty, so we focus on whether people have what we've determined to be a sufficient amount of food instead


You have a valid point, but is being improperly used. There is no doubt that people are taking advantage and are too dependent on food stamps; however, people of all financial standings attempt to "cheat the system" as well. How many times have you heard of celebrities not paying taxes?

If you're arguing against food stamps, starvation is not the way to go. I would argue that people of poverty would result to crime before starving. Yes, there is PLENTY of food in the U.S., but as I mentioned before, there aren't enough citizens involved to cover down on the less fortunate. This includes not only the givers, but people actively trying to better themselves and not just get a hand out.

As a result, the government provides programs to assist. In order to break the cycle, the government needs reevaluate the government assistant programs. Ending them will not help because of the previous paragraph. There aren't enough people with the right mentality of assistance and people will just resort to crime (i.e., theft, drugs, prostitution)
#285 Jan 12 2013 at 3:02 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
A lot of the food, especially in the US, is also nutritionally inadequate. We're supposed to be getting 5 servings of fruit and vegetables a day, and yet in many urban areas, there is no source of such things - US convenience stores tend not to stock anything besides apples and bananas if you're lucky. (Now in Japan, the conbini we visited had an entire miniature produce section.)

Urban gardens are one solution to that problem, although stupid cities often have ordinances against having gardens in the front yard.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#286 Jan 14 2013 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Honestly? Why should I bother to continue to post links to sources then? You ignore them when I do anyway (or just dismiss them without discussion as you're doing right now).


You mean like the link you gave me on a study done determining ones ability to feel secure in providing food to a family? The one where quotes you pulled contradicted what your point was....the very point you linked to support your claims that food stamps aren't really needed cause people can work for food like your po' family did.


The point being made in that case was that the difference in actual food a given family ate was not significantly affected based on whether they received food stamps or not. So the food stamps in most cases were not necessary to ensure people had enough food, but rather simply allowed them to buy other things as well as food. Which directly supported by multiple quotes from the source I linked, each of which represented a different method used to interpret the data on food stamp use (did you read the link?).

Quote:
Meanwhile said that food stamps are working, however the gap still leaves them on the list of low food security, despite the fact food stamps do make people feel more secure.


You missed the point I was making *and* the point of the study I linked. The degree to which a given family suffers "food insecurity" does not appear to change at all based on whether we provide them with food stamps. A family that comes up $100/month short on their food budget each month, if given $300 in food stamps, will still come up $100 short on their food budget each month. While the study doesn't attempt to explain *why* that happens, the overwhelming amount of data supporting this is present. All I did was attempt an explanation. I believe that the reason this happens is because some people (many people?) only stop spending on "wants", when their inability to obtain their "needs" reaches some level. Where that threshold is will vary from person to person, but each person will have one. So one person's threshold might be "coming within $100 of being unable to feed my family", and that person will stop spending on non-essentials $100 before they run short of food. Someone else's threshold might be "coming $100 short on food for the month", and will thus always come up $100 short no matter how much food purchasing assistance you provide them.

That explanation fits the data. The idea that if we just provide people with sufficient food stamps, we'll eliminate food insecurity is *not*.

Quote:
The cite you linked comparing the values to showing that 3 distinct income brackets all fell below the governments intended level of food security. Showing that while food stamps help they are not closing the gap they intend to close.
'

Yes. You're missing the next set of logic though. Why is it that food stamp programs help to a certain point, but then are apparently unable to close that gap? My proposed explanation is that the people have an innate "gap" they will maintain no matter how much they have available to spend. Thus, increasing the amount of food stamps we give them, does not affect that gap. This theory fits the data perfectly.

Remember, I'm not arguing to end food stamps entirely. I'm suggesting that we should not equate a dollar of food stamps to a dollar of food provided for someone in need. I'm arguing that at some point, people will transform the dollars of food stamps into dollars for other things. A simple example of this is someone who earns $1000/month and currently spends $200/month on food. If you give that person $200 in food stamps, will they now spend $400 on food? Or will they continue to spend $200 on food, and thus increase the amount they can spend on other things by $200/month?

I don't think it's much of a mystery what will happen. Do you? So giving that person food stamps doesn't increase the amount of food they have, or decrease any food insecurity they have. Most if not all of the food stamp dollars will end out being used to buy things other than food.

Quote:
I have already addressed all this though, after it being pointed out you either did not read the article, or grossly misunderstood what the article said, and just pecked through to find quotes you could use in nonsensical order to make a point, you decided to whine about how no one ever reads your articles and responds to discuss. Of course I imagine you assumed I would not read the article, and thus be able to blow holes throughout your interpretation of it.


Since you have yet to actually say anything about the article that makes me think you read and understood it, I'm going to stick with that. The one half paragraph you did quote indicates that you just scanned through it looking for a quotable line or two that would appear out of context to counter what I was saying. You failed to even read the whole paragraph it was in though, much less understand the whole source. This was abundantly obvious to anyone who actually read the whole thing.

Quote:
You don't like facts because you lack the mental capacity to understand what you are trying to read, and it shows in your complete lack of understanding of a vast majority of what is discussed here. You try to cover your inept understanding by using a lot of words, you hope people get lost in the bullsh*t and sh*tty analogies and forget the original point.


Wait. Me writing in my own words what a source of data means indicates a lack of understanding of the subject matter, but you quoting an out of context sentence from the same source means you do? Um... It works the other way around btw.

Quote:
If you read half as much as your brain sperges on a keyboard, you might actually be able to A) Learn something of what you are talking about, and B)Actually be able to back it up with relative support. Instead of picking through an article in direct conflict with your own position.



There's some rich irony here. I suspect you can't see it though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#287 Jan 14 2013 at 6:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Food is an incredibly inelastic product. People will buy enough so that they don't actually starve. This is why we use terms like "food insecurity" btw. Almost no one starves in the US because of poverty, so we focus on whether people have what we've determined to be a sufficient amount of food instead


You have a valid point, but is being improperly used. There is no doubt that people are taking advantage and are too dependent on food stamps; however, people of all financial standings attempt to "cheat the system" as well. How many times have you heard of celebrities not paying taxes?


Sure. I'm not discounting this. All I'm saying is that we should not therefore assume that this *doesn't* happen in the case of poor people and food purchases. I'm arguing *against* the assumption that a dollar of food stamps equals a dollar more food in the mouths of hungry children.

Quote:
If you're arguing against food stamps, starvation is not the way to go. I would argue that people of poverty would result to crime before starving.


And most people (in poverty or not) will choose to spend enough on food to avoid starving as well. You're excluding a middle here. We're not talking about starvation. We're talking about "food insecurity". Which is a standard well above that of actually starving. My argument, which is supported by the data I provided, is that the level of food insecurity doesn't seem to change much at all relative to how much we provide people in the form of food stamps.

Quote:
Yes, there is PLENTY of food in the U.S., but as I mentioned before, there aren't enough citizens involved to cover down on the less fortunate. This includes not only the givers, but people actively trying to better themselves and not just get a hand out.


Not enough to do what? Avoid starvation? Absolutely there is. To avoid "food insecurity"? There is, but people make choices which result in them being food insecure even when they do have sufficient access to food to avoid it. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Quote:
As a result, the government provides programs to assist. In order to break the cycle, the government needs reevaluate the government assistant programs. Ending them will not help because of the previous paragraph. There aren't enough people with the right mentality of assistance and people will just resort to crime (i.e., theft, drugs, prostitution)


I don't believe that even if we ended food stamps entirely, it would neither increase the rate of crime *nor* increase the rate of food insecurity. It certainly would not increase the rate at which anyone starves to death. Remember that as a general rule, people receiving food stamps are not completely without other sources of income. It's not like the $300/month of food stamps is the only source of income they have, else where would we send them? They have addresses. They have other sources of money.

Remember also that my argument isn't about providing zero help, but rather changing the nature of the help. If people really honestly can't get enough food to eat, there are lots of different ways to obtain it. I've mentioned the idea of food banks and other direct methods of getting actual food to people who need it. Those programs work, and the people receive food, not stamps they can use to buy food. It's about someone's ability to tolerate their innate condition. If food insecurity is sufficiently intolerable, they'll do something like work with a food bank to obtain food (or go to a soup kitchen for a meal). By simply giving people food stamps based on their income, we're allowing them an easy choice. And my argument is that for many people, the threshold at which we provide them food stamps is well above the threshold at which they'd make changes in their own choices to ensure they get sufficient food. As a result, the food stamps often don't affect the actual amount of food they receive at all, but merely makes their choice to spend money on things they want instead of need easier.


This was born out with the poster who continued to pay $800/month for a car, while taking food stamps. Perfect example of what I'm talking about. Absent food stamps, he would have been forced to make a choice between the car and food. But with them, he could avoid making that choice. So I think talking about choosing between hunger and crime is absurd. We're not even close to that calculation here. We're allowing people to avoid making a choice between hunger and an expensive car. And that should *not* be what food assistance is about.

Edited, Jan 14th 2013 6:08pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#288 Jan 14 2013 at 8:43 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
This was born out with the poster who continued to pay $800/month for a car, while taking food stamps. Perfect example of what I'm talking about. Absent food stamps, he would have been forced to make a choice between the car and food. But with them, he could avoid making that choice. So I think talking about choosing between hunger and crime is absurd. We're not even close to that calculation here. We're allowing people to avoid making a choice between hunger and an expensive car. And that should *not* be what food assistance is about.


Once again idiot. This is the real world. Another poster commented on the difficulty of getting around, while not in every situation it is still a common one. My choice was give up the car and then not be able to work. So then not only would I actually starve, I would not have a roof over my head, afford my meds (diabetic) and obviously would have then been in greater need of assistance. So what would you suggest be taken from me then, you know to force me to better myself.

The meds alone is 60ish for a single vial of 70/30 insulin. Three is what is typically needed for a single month. In MT I could not find a generic brand. FL it cost me 25 a vial.
#289 Jan 14 2013 at 10:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Gbaji wrote:
The point being made in that case was that the difference in actual food a given family ate was not significantly affected based on whether they received food stamps or not


Actually it doesn't say that at all in fact it says the exact opposite really.

Article wrote:
A thorough 2004 USDA literature review summarized the large body of research showing that food stamp benefits substantially raise food spending, may raise nutrient availability in household food supplies, and cannot be shown to consistently affect individual nutrient intake


The problem with selectively quoting articles is that you get the luxury of jumbling up all the facts.

The main meat to this article was based off a survey conducted by the USDA in 2004, in 2004 it was deemed that the survey was unable to quantify what people were actually eating. It states that while it shows that an increased amount of food was available to the household, it is undetermined as to an individuals intake.

This survey has nothing to do with what people eat. It only asks if they feel secure in providing food to their families.


Gbaji wrote:
You missed the point I was making *and* the point of the study I linked. The degree to which a given family suffers "food insecurity" does not appear to change at all based on whether we provide them with food stamps.


Compared to what? This study did not ask equally impoverished people who are not on food stamps what their food security is like. There is no possible way you can make that claim using the data you provided, and there is no support at all for your claim in the data provided.

All this shows is that despite food stamps, people are still below the US governments standard for food security. That is it. That is the only thing this entire article says.

Quote:
Wait. Me writing in my own words what a source of data means indicates a lack of understanding of the subject matter


Yes because the article you shared does not support any of your words, it states pretty blatantly that it can't define these things. This article clearly does not say what you think it says. There is no data on comparison to income brackets on food stamps vs those same income brackets not on food stamps. Which is a pretty @#%^ing important statistic in determining the argument of "The degree to which a given family suffers "food insecurity" does not appear to change at all based on whether we provide them with food stamps."

You linked an article that does not support your argument in any way.
Quote:
but you quoting an out of context sentence from the same source means you do? Um... It works the other way around btw.


WTF are you talking about??? I quoted you you idiot. The quotes in my post were ones that you pulled from the article. Dumbass.







Edited, Jan 15th 2013 1:46am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#290 Jan 14 2013 at 10:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
As for my thoughts, I think this article speaks of a real problem. Food stamps are not enough. Or their payout needs to be restructured. I spend 100 bucks a week for me. That 400 bucks for myself. 1 person. **** I spend 20 bucks a week just on milk. These people make nothing (article values) in order to qualify for 100% food stamps.

These people have to make meals, for 4 on 125 bucks a week. Good Luck. I would be insecure too.

I mean sh*t none of the people asked in this survey felt secure, including non-participants.

(secure being your governments target).







Edited, Jan 15th 2013 12:10am by rdmcandie

Edited, Jan 15th 2013 12:29am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#291 Jan 15 2013 at 5:15 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,908 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
I spend 100 bucks a week for me. That 400 bucks for myself. 1 person. **** I spend 20 bucks a week just on milk.


Not everyone is an overeater, and foodstamps shouldn't pay for your overeating. Seriously, 20 dollars a week on milk for one person? You drink a gallon a day or something?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#292 Jan 15 2013 at 7:16 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
I didn't find any hard data, but average household grocery expenditures for a week for a family of about 4 (2 kids, 2 adults) seems to be about $150.00.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#293 Jan 15 2013 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
******
49,823 posts
gbaji wrote:
Honestly? Why should I bother to continue to post links to sources then? You ignore them when I do anyway (or just dismiss them without discussion as you're doing right now). Then, in a monumental display of self delusion, you return right back to the "you never provide sources" claim.
That's adorable. You do something so rarely, and the few times (and we're talking a percent of a percent here) you do you end up misrepresenting the information within proving to everyone you didn't actually read the entire text you're hinging your hopes on, and then call everyone else delusional when they call you on either.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#294 Jan 15 2013 at 9:50 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
TirithRR wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
I spend 100 bucks a week for me. That 400 bucks for myself. 1 person. **** I spend 20 bucks a week just on milk.


Not everyone is an overeater, and foodstamps shouldn't pay for your overeating. Seriously, 20 dollars a week on milk for one person? You drink a gallon a day or something?


No I drink about a litre a day, 2 500ml cartons. 2 bucks a pop. Also I guess to be fair (to myself at least) food prices are quite a bit more up here on average than in the US. I mean you guys spend what 3-4 bucks on a gallon of milk (granted I read that it is expected to hit as much as 8 bucks by the end of 2013). It costs me 2 bucks for 500ml which is about 15 bucks a gallon when all is said and done.

So take my spending with a little grain of salt, If I lived south of the border Id probably be in the 50-60 dollar range, maybe less.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#295 Jan 15 2013 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
Elinda wrote:
I didn't find any hard data, but average household grocery expenditures for a week for a family of about 4 (2 kids, 2 adults) seems to be about $150.00.


Last time I did math we were about $450 for the month, but that included non-food items on the receipts; maybe $70 - $80 a week or so. It really depends on what's on sale, and how much time we have to match up coupons and what not. Getting cheap fruits out of season just doesn't happen, and you can only eat so much chicken...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#296 Jan 15 2013 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The $8 a Gallon milk thing was based on farm subsidies expiring with the whole fiscal cliff debacle. It's unlikely to happen (and may have been included in the recent deal, it's not something high on my radar).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#297 Jan 15 2013 at 10:00 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The $8 a Gallon milk thing was based on farm subsidies expiring with the whole fiscal cliff debacle. It's unlikely to happen (and may have been included in the recent deal, it's not something high on my radar).


Ah I wasn't aware of the root cause I just remember seeing some headlines before christmas of it potentially heading higher as 2013 went on. In either regard you guys have nice cheap food, and gas! (at least by comparison we are getting reemed pretty good in both countries tbh).
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#298 Jan 15 2013 at 10:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
gbaji wrote:
You missed the point I was making *and* the point of the study I linked. The degree to which a given family suffers "food insecurity" does not appear to change at all based on whether we provide them with food stamps. A family that comes up $100/month short on their food budget each month, if given $300 in food stamps, will still come up $100 short on their food budget each month. While the study doesn't attempt to explain *why* that happens, the overwhelming amount of data supporting this is present. All I did was attempt an explanation. I believe that the reason this happens is because some people (many people?) only stop spending on "wants", when their inability to obtain their "needs" reaches some level. Where that threshold is will vary from person to person, but each person will have one. So one person's threshold might be "coming within $100 of being unable to feed my family", and that person will stop spending on non-essentials $100 before they run short of food. Someone else's threshold might be "coming $100 short on food for the month", and will thus always come up $100 short no matter how much food purchasing assistance you provide them.

That explanation fits the data. The idea that if we just provide people with sufficient food stamps, we'll eliminate food insecurity is *not*.


People will buy better food with more money, less rice more meat or something. There a lot of grey area between adequate nutrition and survival.

Just venturing a guess. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Jan 15th 2013 8:06am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#299 Jan 15 2013 at 10:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The $8 a Gallon milk thing was based on farm subsidies expiring with the whole fiscal cliff debacle. It's unlikely to happen (and may have been included in the recent deal, it's not something high on my radar).


Ah I wasn't aware of the root cause I just remember seeing some headlines before christmas of it potentially heading higher as 2013 went on. In either regard you guys have nice cheap food, and gas! (at least by comparison we are getting reemed pretty good in both countries tbh).


Whatever it was, it got the Mrs. to "stock up" on alternatives. On the plus side "Daddy, I want box milk" is an opportunity to get someone to clean up their toys. Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#300 Jan 15 2013 at 10:24 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The $8 a Gallon milk thing was based on farm subsidies expiring with the whole fiscal cliff debacle. It's unlikely to happen (and may have been included in the recent deal, it's not something high on my radar).


Ah I wasn't aware of the root cause I just remember seeing some headlines before christmas of it potentially heading higher as 2013 went on. In either regard you guys have nice cheap food, and gas! (at least by comparison we are getting reemed pretty good in both countries tbh).


Whatever it was, it got the Mrs. to "stock up" on alternatives. On the plus side "Daddy, I want box milk" is an opportunity to get someone to clean up their toys. Smiley: lol


Ah bribery the secret weapon of successful child raising.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#301 Jan 15 2013 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
Don't forget extortion and blackmail. The mob has nothing on a parent. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)