Blue States Residents Have The Least Freedom

[BDKJMU]

I've got nothing for or against South Dakota, but

If SD is shut a shithole, how come it currently has the 3rd lowest unemployment in the country at 4.8%?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... yment_rate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course SD will always be near the bottom in total GDP because only has 800 some thousand people. If SD is such a shithole, how come it currently is 16th in GDP PER CAPITA? Wouldn't a shithole state be down in the 40s per capita?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If SD is such a shithole, how come it is in the 3rd of 5 quintiles in real GDP growth by state in 2010? If it is such a shithole as you claim, wouldn't it be in the bottom quintile?
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regiona ... elease.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh, did I mention SD is 3rd lowest state for most recent year available, 2009, in local and state tax burden as a % of income:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr189.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, SD is such a shithole I guess for you all rural states are shitholes?

and yet they move to MN and Colorado for jobs and opportunities...

A large percentage of 20 somethings usually move to the big cities at least for a while- thats the same in every state, esp rural states. SD doesn't have any big cities. In the case of young people moving away that is a negative, even if they later move back. There are also plenty of positives about not have to deal with all the problems of a big million+ people metro area. Nothing new here.

[Cap'n Cat]

T, T, T.......

[travelinman67]

The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink, former president of the Koch Family Foundations, which funds a network of market-oriented think tanks and advocacy groups. Originally called the Center for Market Processes, it moved from Rutgers University to George Mason in the early 1980s before assuming its current name in 1999. The Mercatus Center is entirely funded through donations, including from energy company Koch Industries[2], individual donors and foundations.

All you need to know about the slant of this right there.

Another Koch Brothers front putting out bullshit to scare Americans

Koch Brothers fabricate yet another Big Brother Conspiracy scheme: Allege government telling food producers how to prepare food, OR ELSE!!!


Obama's Food Police in Staggering Crackdown on Market to Kids

by Audrey Hudson
06/21/2011

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44343

Tony the Tiger, some NASCAR drivers and cookie-selling Girl Scouts will be out of a job unless grocery manufacturers agree to reinvent a vast array of their products to satisfy the Obama administration’s food police.

Either retool the recipes to contain certain levels of sugar, sodium and fats, or no more advertising and marketing to tots and teenagers, say several federal regulatory agencies.

The same goes for restaurants.

It’s not just the usual suspected foods that are being targeted, such a thin mint cookies sold by scouts or M&Ms and Snickers, which sponsor cars in the Sprint Cup, but pretty much everything on a restaurant menu.

Although the intent of the guidelines is to combat childhood obesity, foods that are low in calories, fat, and some considered healthy foods, are also targets, including hot breakfast cereals such as oatmeal, pretzels, popcorn, nuts, yogurt, wheat bread, bagels, diet drinks, fruit juice, tea, bottled water, milk and sherbet.

Food industries are in an uproar over the proposal written by the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“The most disturbing aspect of this interagency working group is, after it imposes multibillions of dollars in restrictions on the food industry, there is no evidence of any impact on the scourge of childhood obesity,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.

The “Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulation Efforts” says it is voluntary, but industry officials say the intent is clear: Do it, or else.

“When regulators strongly suggest a course of action, it’s treated as a rule, not a suggestion,” said Scott Faber, vice president of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “Industry tends to heed these suggestions from our regulators, and this administration has made it clear they are willing to regulate if we don’t implement their proposal.”

It’s not just the food industry that will be impacted. Hundreds of television shows that depend on the advertising revenue, such as the Nickelodeon Channel, ESPN, and programs including "American Idol" will be affected, critics of the proposal say—at a cost of $5.8 trillion in marketing expenditures that support up to 20 million American jobs.

If the food is not reformulated, no more ads or promotions on TV, radio, in print, on websites, as well as other digital advertising such as e-mail and text messaging, packaging, and point-of-purchase displays and other in-store marketing tools; product placement in movies, videos, video games, contests, sweepstakes, character licensing and toy branding; sponsorship of events including sport teams and individual athletes; and, philanthropic activity tied to branding opportunities.

That includes softball teams that are sponsored by food companies and school reading programs sponsored by restaurants.

“The Interagency working group recommends that the food industry, through voluntary self-regulatory efforts, make significant improvements in the nutritional quality of foods marketed to children and adolescents ages 2 to 17 years,” the proposal says.

“By the year 2016, all food products within the categories most heavily marketed directly to children should meet two basic nutrition principles. Such foods should be formulated to … make a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet and minimize the content of nutrients that could have a negative impact on health and weight.”

The foods most heavily marketed directly to children and adolescents fall into 10 categories: “breakfast cereals, snack foods, candy, dairy products, baked goods, carbonated beverages, fruit juice and non-carbonated beverages, prepared foods and meals, frozen and chilled desserts, and restaurant foods.”

Beth Johnson, a dietician for Food Directions in Maryland, said many of the foods targeted in this proposal are the same foods approved by the federal government for the WIC nutrition program for women, infants and children.

“This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever,” Johnson said. “It’s not going to do anything to help with obesity. These are decisions I want to make for my kids. These should not be government decisions.”

This country isn't too old for a revolution.

[GannonFan]

“The most disturbing aspect of this interagency working group is, after it imposes multibillions of dollars in restrictions on the food industry, there is no evidence of any impact on the scourge of childhood obesity,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.

That's the part I agree with - we can try to regulate out all the "bad" food we want to, but at the end of the day obesity in America has nothing to do with not having enough good choices of food out there or even really what foods you choose to eat or feed to your kids. It all comes down to intaking more calories than you expend. It's not rocket science. We can regulate until the cows don't even have to come home anymore because we will have eliminated cows as a source of any food, but it won't stop people from getting fat. I mean, unless we start forcing people to move a certain amount every day....

[TwinTownBisonFan]

“The most disturbing aspect of this interagency working group is, after it imposes multibillions of dollars in restrictions on the food industry, there is no evidence of any impact on the scourge of childhood obesity,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.

That's the part I agree with - we can try to regulate out all the "bad" food we want to, but at the end of the day obesity in America has nothing to do with not having enough good choices of food out there or even really what foods you choose to eat or feed to your kids. It all comes down to intaking more calories than you expend. It's not rocket science. We can regulate until the cows don't even have to come home anymore because we will have eliminated cows as a source of any food, but it won't stop people from getting fat. I mean, unless we start forcing people to move a certain amount every day....

While there is certainly a lot of truth in that... the Advertisers are using it as a red herring.

Fact is, in the last 50 years the food we eat has gotten MUCH worse for us. To expand profits, the food manufacturers have begun using cheaper filler ingredients and gutting the nutritional value of food. They then spend billions marketing, not just to kids but to adults as well to counteract this. It works.

Take a BIG example. Breakfast cereal... quite honestly - NONE of the cereal on the market is really healthy - a few exceptions here and there - but 90% of breakfast cereals are corn syrup laden carbs. However - billions in marketing lead consumers to believe that a cereal like Wheaties is actually good for you... they fought like hell the improved labeling laws 15 years ago - but then they found a way around them... cut "portion size" on the label to 1/2 or less of what an average portion is...

Yes - kids, and parents too need to get off their asses and exercise - but take it from me - cutting out processed foods from my diet was THE catalyst in my weight loss (now at nearly 140 lbs lost). Leaning on the manufacturers to put out a healthier product is not the ONLY thing to solve this problem - but it has to be A component...

[GannonFan]

That's the part I agree with - we can try to regulate out all the "bad" food we want to, but at the end of the day obesity in America has nothing to do with not having enough good choices of food out there or even really what foods you choose to eat or feed to your kids. It all comes down to intaking more calories than you expend. It's not rocket science. We can regulate until the cows don't even have to come home anymore because we will have eliminated cows as a source of any food, but it won't stop people from getting fat. I mean, unless we start forcing people to move a certain amount every day....

While there is certainly a lot of truth in that... the Advertisers are using it as a red herring.

Fact is, in the last 50 years the food we eat has gotten MUCH worse for us. To expand profits, the food manufacturers have begun using cheaper filler ingredients and gutting the nutritional value of food. They then spend billions marketing, not just to kids but to adults as well to counteract this. It works.

Take a BIG example. Breakfast cereal... quite honestly - NONE of the cereal on the market is really healthy - a few exceptions here and there - but 90% of breakfast cereals are corn syrup laden carbs. However - billions in marketing lead consumers to believe that a cereal like Wheaties is actually good for you... they fought like hell the improved labeling laws 15 years ago - but then they found a way around them... cut "portion size" on the label to 1/2 or less of what an average portion is...

Yes - kids, and parents too need to get off their asses and exercise - but take it from me - cutting out processed foods from my diet was THE catalyst in my weight loss (now at nearly 140 lbs lost). Leaning on the manufacturers to put out a healthier product is not the ONLY thing to solve this problem - but it has to be A component...

Eh, fact is, in the last 50 years we have gotten to be a significantly more sedentary nation. Gotta do both and frankly, it's very possible even now to eat healthy. Heck, you're example is great - you cut out processed food, and you lost weight. Why do we need to eliminate the choice to eat processed food simply because some people decide to, on their own, not eat healthy? I made a decision to eat smaller portions last year and I've lost about 30 lbs since that time. I still eat food laden with corn syrup and I love it. Not sure why I should have that choice taken away from me because someone else can't control themselves to eat in moderation.

[GannonFan]

That's the part I agree with - we can try to regulate out all the "bad" food we want to, but at the end of the day obesity in America has nothing to do with not having enough good choices of food out there or even really what foods you choose to eat or feed to your kids. It all comes down to intaking more calories than you expend. It's not rocket science. We can regulate until the cows don't even have to come home anymore because we will have eliminated cows as a source of any food, but it won't stop people from getting fat. I mean, unless we start forcing people to move a certain amount every day....

While there is certainly a lot of truth in that... the Advertisers are using it as a red herring.

Fact is, in the last 50 years the food we eat has gotten MUCH worse for us. To expand profits, the food manufacturers have begun using cheaper filler ingredients and gutting the nutritional value of food. They then spend billions marketing, not just to kids but to adults as well to counteract this. It works.

Take a BIG example. Breakfast cereal... quite honestly - NONE of the cereal on the market is really healthy - a few exceptions here and there - but 90% of breakfast cereals are corn syrup laden carbs. However - billions in marketing lead consumers to believe that a cereal like Wheaties is actually good for you... they fought like hell the improved labeling laws 15 years ago - but then they found a way around them... cut "portion size" on the label to 1/2 or less of what an average portion is...

Yes - kids, and parents too need to get off their asses and exercise - but take it from me - cutting out processed foods from my diet was THE catalyst in my weight loss (now at nearly 140 lbs lost). Leaning on the manufacturers to put out a healthier product is not the ONLY thing to solve this problem - but it has to be A component...

Hey, since we did bring up portion size, why don't we go after the manufacturers of cereal bowls? Maybe the problem isn't the cereals we are eating, but that the bowls we're eating them from are too big - people just feel the need to fill them more than they should. Damn those nefarious ceramic bowl makers, forcing us to eat more than we should!

[AZGrizFan]

Up the weight of things like "civil liberties", "imminent domain", "arrests for victimless crimes", "marijuana laws", "gun laws", "alcohol regulations", etc. etc.

Those are all way more important to me... and they're given tiny little slivers.

Tiny slivers? Marijuana laws has the 2nd biggest "sliver" in the "paternalism" category.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

While there is certainly a lot of truth in that... the Advertisers are using it as a red herring.

Fact is, in the last 50 years the food we eat has gotten MUCH worse for us. To expand profits, the food manufacturers have begun using cheaper filler ingredients and gutting the nutritional value of food. They then spend billions marketing, not just to kids but to adults as well to counteract this. It works.

Take a BIG example. Breakfast cereal... quite honestly - NONE of the cereal on the market is really healthy - a few exceptions here and there - but 90% of breakfast cereals are corn syrup laden carbs. However - billions in marketing lead consumers to believe that a cereal like Wheaties is actually good for you... they fought like hell the improved labeling laws 15 years ago - but then they found a way around them... cut "portion size" on the label to 1/2 or less of what an average portion is...

Yes - kids, and parents too need to get off their asses and exercise - but take it from me - cutting out processed foods from my diet was THE catalyst in my weight loss (now at nearly 140 lbs lost). Leaning on the manufacturers to put out a healthier product is not the ONLY thing to solve this problem - but it has to be A component...

Eh, fact is, in the last 50 years we have gotten to be a significantly more sedentary nation. Gotta do both and frankly, it's very possible even now to eat healthy. Heck, you're example is great - you cut out processed food, and you lost weight. Why do we need to eliminate the choice to eat processed food simply because some people decide to, on their own, not eat healthy? I made a decision to eat smaller portions last year and I've lost about 30 lbs since that time. I still eat food laden with corn syrup and I love it. Not sure why I should have that choice taken away from me because someone else can't control themselves to eat in moderation.

the problem is - up until recently (18 months or so ago) I knew very little about the nutritional dangers in processed foods. Yes, I knew candy bars weren't healthy and that oranges were - but what I didn't know much about was how processed foods essentially compound the problems... moreover - foods you might consider "healthy" are often not thanks to the duplicity or at least misleading of the food industry. Take juice for example. Most "juice" is 10-30% juice and then water and corn syrup. that shit is just as bad for you as a soda - yet it's sold as "healthy"... even 100% juice is misleading - 100% cranberry and blueberry blend - is usually about 50% apple juice (cheaper filler) - navigating labels as a consumer is incredibly tricky - and the manufacturers want it that way.

it's possible today to eat healthy, but doing so is actually VERY expensive. my grocery expenses about doubled when I changed my diet - not always possible for everyone. Like I said above - the amount of information a consumer needs to cut through bullshit is significant...

Again, I don't disagree that exercise is very important, but holding manufacturers responsible for the products they put on the shelves (even if it is just a change in labeling laws) would go a long way toward improving public health. Take corn syrup for example - look a label on any prepared food - odds are very good it's in there - even in shit you wouldn't expect...

[Grizalltheway]

Eh, fact is, in the last 50 years we have gotten to be a significantly more sedentary nation. Gotta do both and frankly, it's very possible even now to eat healthy. Heck, you're example is great - you cut out processed food, and you lost weight. Why do we need to eliminate the choice to eat processed food simply because some people decide to, on their own, not eat healthy? I made a decision to eat smaller portions last year and I've lost about 30 lbs since that time. I still eat food laden with corn syrup and I love it. Not sure why I should have that choice taken away from me because someone else can't control themselves to eat in moderation.

the problem is - up until recently (18 months or so ago) I knew very little about the nutritional dangers in processed foods. Yes, I knew candy bars weren't healthy and that oranges were - but what I didn't know much about was how processed foods essentially compound the problems... moreover - foods you might consider "healthy" are often not thanks to the duplicity or at least misleading of the food industry. Take juice for example. Most "juice" is 10-30% juice and then water and corn syrup. that shit is just as bad for you as a soda - yet it's sold as "healthy"... even 100% juice is misleading - 100% cranberry and blueberry blend - is usually about 50% apple juice (cheaper filler) - navigating labels as a consumer is incredibly tricky - and the manufacturers want it that way.

it's possible today to eat healthy, but doing so is actually VERY expensive. my grocery expenses about doubled when I changed my diet - not always possible for everyone. Like I said above - the amount of information a consumer needs to cut through bullshit is significant...

Again, I don't disagree that exercise is very important, but holding manufacturers responsible for the products they put on the shelves (even if it is just a change in labeling laws) would go a long way toward improving public health. Take corn syrup for example - look a label on any prepared food - odds are very good it's in there - even in shit you wouldn't expect...

I believe this is mostly Cap'n Cat's fault.

Also Bush.

[GannonFan]

Eh, fact is, in the last 50 years we have gotten to be a significantly more sedentary nation. Gotta do both and frankly, it's very possible even now to eat healthy. Heck, you're example is great - you cut out processed food, and you lost weight. Why do we need to eliminate the choice to eat processed food simply because some people decide to, on their own, not eat healthy? I made a decision to eat smaller portions last year and I've lost about 30 lbs since that time. I still eat food laden with corn syrup and I love it. Not sure why I should have that choice taken away from me because someone else can't control themselves to eat in moderation.

the problem is - up until recently (18 months or so ago) I knew very little about the nutritional dangers in processed foods. Yes, I knew candy bars weren't healthy and that oranges were - but what I didn't know much about was how processed foods essentially compound the problems... moreover - foods you might consider "healthy" are often not thanks to the duplicity or at least misleading of the food industry. Take juice for example. Most "juice" is 10-30% juice and then water and corn syrup. that **** is just as bad for you as a soda - yet it's sold as "healthy"... even 100% juice is misleading - 100% cranberry and blueberry blend - is usually about 50% apple juice (cheaper filler) - navigating labels as a consumer is incredibly tricky - and the manufacturers want it that way.

it's possible today to eat healthy, but doing so is actually VERY expensive. my grocery expenses about doubled when I changed my diet - not always possible for everyone. Like I said above - the amount of information a consumer needs to cut through bullshit is significant...

Again, I don't disagree that exercise is very important, but holding manufacturers responsible for the products they put on the shelves (even if it is just a change in labeling laws) would go a long way toward improving public health. Take corn syrup for example - look a label on any prepared food - odds are very good it's in there - even in **** you wouldn't expect...

See, that's the thing though, I don't think navigating labels are all that difficult. I have two sons with milk allergies (not intolerance, actual allergies) and we have to read everything we buy anyway. The information is there and pretty straight forward these days. Of course it was complicated 10 and 20 years ago, but that's in the past. There's tons of crap in lots of food. As for the juice, again, all that information is on the label (including the apple juice filler). And there are plenty of choices that don't do that. And even then, you shouldn't be drinking tons of juice anyway - way too much natural sugars in that. Cutting juice with water (or, if you're so inclined, an alcoholic beverage) is probably better.

With the health education kids get in school today, and with the amount of labeling that is out there, and with just so much other information available (heck, if you question something or need to find something, Google is a pretty quick way to get a mountainload of information on really anything) the only reasons people don't know is because they either don't care or don't want to take the time to care. And on top of that they don't want to either cut back their portions and/or exercise more. To me, that's a person choosing to be unhealthy. I choose to live differently, and I don't want my food choices to be limited because of the other people's choices.

[native]

...This country isn't too old for a revolution.

Correct.

[kalm]

the problem is - up until recently (18 months or so ago) I knew very little about the nutritional dangers in processed foods. Yes, I knew candy bars weren't healthy and that oranges were - but what I didn't know much about was how processed foods essentially compound the problems... moreover - foods you might consider "healthy" are often not thanks to the duplicity or at least misleading of the food industry. Take juice for example. Most "juice" is 10-30% juice and then water and corn syrup. that **** is just as bad for you as a soda - yet it's sold as "healthy"... even 100% juice is misleading - 100% cranberry and blueberry blend - is usually about 50% apple juice (cheaper filler) - navigating labels as a consumer is incredibly tricky - and the manufacturers want it that way.

it's possible today to eat healthy, but doing so is actually VERY expensive. my grocery expenses about doubled when I changed my diet - not always possible for everyone. Like I said above - the amount of information a consumer needs to cut through bullshit is significant...

Again, I don't disagree that exercise is very important, but holding manufacturers responsible for the products they put on the shelves (even if it is just a change in labeling laws) would go a long way toward improving public health. Take corn syrup for example - look a label on any prepared food - odds are very good it's in there - even in **** you wouldn't expect...

See, that's the thing though, I don't think navigating labels are all that difficult. I have two sons with milk allergies (not intolerance, actual allergies) and we have to read everything we buy anyway. The information is there and pretty straight forward these days. Of course it was complicated 10 and 20 years ago, but that's in the past. There's tons of crap in lots of food. As for the juice, again, all that information is on the label (including the apple juice filler). And there are plenty of choices that don't do that. And even then, you shouldn't be drinking tons of juice anyway - way too much natural sugars in that. Cutting juice with water (or, if you're so inclined, an alcoholic beverage) is probably better.

With the health education kids get in school today, and with the amount of labeling that is out there, and with just so much other information available (heck, if you question something or need to find something, Google is a pretty quick way to get a mountainload of information on really anything) the only reasons people don't know is because they either don't care or don't want to take the time to care. And on top of that they don't want to either cut back their portions and/or exercise more. To me, that's a person choosing to be unhealthy. I choose to live differently, and I don't want my food choices to be limited because of the other people's choices.

Food deserts and dumb people disagree.

[JohnStOnge]

Another Koch Brothers front putting out bullshit to scare Americans

Well, I don't know about about the State to State thing but it's obviously not a "free country." You can be arrested for growing a marijuana plant in your own yard for your own consumption. A man and woman can be arrested for a consensual agreement in which she provides sex while he provides money. A business owner cna be forced to hire people he would rather not hire or serve people he'd rather not serve. Soon we will not be able to engage in agreement whereby one person can produce an incandescent light bulb and another person can buy it. People have their resources confiscated by government so government can give them to other people.

It's not a "free country" at all.

[kalm]

Another Koch Brothers front putting out bullshit to scare Americans

Well, I don't know about about the State to State thing but it's obviously not a "free country." You can be arrested for growing a marijuana plant in your own yard for your own consumption. A man and woman can be arrested for a consensual agreement in which she provides sex while he provides money. A business owner cna be forced to hire people he would rather not hire or serve people he'd rather not serve. Soon we will not be able to engage in agreement whereby one person can produce an incandescent light bulb and another person can buy it. People have their resources confiscated by government so government can give them to other people.

It's not a "free country" at all.

It's not a free market either.