<p>
</p>
<p><em>AWKWARD ALERT</em></p>
<p>This post practically screams, “marry me!”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Much of our corn would be imported from abroad because the prices to consumers would go up domestically. And, for whatever reasons, our country doesn’t like this dependency because it discourages local farming. So, we subsidize corn. It’s a poor solution to a relatively trivial problem–most agribusiness is controlled by huge chain farms, not small local farms that need sustenance.</p>
<p>@Lucky</p>
<p>Oh darn, I was kind of excited about the prospect of finding another classmate on CC. Nerdy^10. </p>
<p>Yeah, it probably would have been prominently displayed somehow. I know the faculty received t-shirts saying Bill & Melinda Gates foundation on the back the first year, which some of them wear every now and then. </p>
<p>Something similar to that happened in middle school. But mainly some newscaster will walk into the office, interview the principal, and then go to the closest available class (usually IB English or German, since they’re located closest to the office)</p>
<p>@Calico</p>
<p>We had a dicussion in hist. about this, about how the people who would be willing to take government money (in some cases when they don’t need it) would also be willing to take advantage of soup kitchens. It really depends on how miserly people are, I suppose. </p>
<p>I definitely agree with the physical activity bit. We have an unusual schedule, I think it’s called block, and we only need to take PE two years, and out of those two years it’s only once every other day. And we only need to run the mile ONCE. I actually thought high school PE was going to be hard, but it was a breeze since I was on cross country in middle school. Oh, and I know that question is purely rhetorical but it took me an hour and ten minutes last week to walk home. But that was out of choice.</p>
<p>I think part of that can be contributed to the fact that we’ve created a commuter world, where a lot of people commute really far distances making it impossible for them to walk, and then they transfer those habits into where even if they are within walking/biking distance they just decide to take the easy way. I never thought about how silly it is that there are people who commute to the state capitol from my city until yesterday when I was reading Outcasts United.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This response screams, “I am going to Harvard!” =)</p>
<p>I enjoy how he made the words “awkward alert” in A) a 1337 centered position using bb; B) look like a renamed link. Well done</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting ideas, but the Presidential candidate that suggests not subsidizing corn is the Presidential candidate that gets torpedoed in Iowa and is no longer a Presidential candidate. The corn lobby is, um, powerful.</p>
<p>Check Thi****s Out</p>
<p>Damn can’t change sizes. My phpBB skills are outdated.</p>
<p>But then you have to look at the big picture. Fast food is American food. When people come to the US they want to try the hot dogs, and burgers. The US even made healthy food unhealthy like Pizza, which over in Italy is made very simple and healthy. Most Americans want their food fast, good, and lots of it for the money they spend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is nonsense. We don’t subsidize corn to preserve a fat, filling American food culture, you weirdo. You’re going to be one of those authors that churns out a random “cultural awareness” book anytime a logical debate over legislation starts. I can’t wait to read your next rendition of “Affluenza.” (I hope you were joking, otherwise please read only sentence #2 and remove “you weirdo.”)</p>
<p>There’s some logical reasons to subsidize corn. Keeping cheap food prices at their minimum helps hunger aid. If you want to send humanitarian aid to Africa or the domestic poor, it’s easier when food is cheap. It also helps big meat producers obtain cheap feed, lowering the prices of beef and chicken.</p>
<p>The problem is that these effects are indirect and inefficient. If you want to lower the price of chicken then subsidize chicken. If you want to lower the costs of humanitarian aid then subsidize humanitarian aid. </p>
<p>Subsidization of corn hardly helps local farmers; it mostly helps large agribusiness compete locally and abroad. Call it for what it is. We used to think this was necessary because we expected a huge increase in demand for corn relative to increase in supply. Turns out we’ve found extremely efficient means of producing corn and many uses for corn (biofuel) are failing. So, now, we use the excess corn for unhealthy food products. It’s time to stop subsidizing corn.</p>
<p>^I wasn’t talking about corn or anything your talking about as a matter of fact. I was talking about something else, you know the big picture.</p>
<p>I think we should talk about why the Title Is Spelt Like This. </p>
<p>Any thoughts?</p>
<p>First Letter Caps Are Super Intelligent Like</p>
<p>I wanna talk about time travel now.</p>
<p>justtotalk is gettin his groove on!</p>
<p>American foods contain far more fast food restaurants and less activity, but the foods here also contain high amounts of hormones. Also, ingredients tend to be less fresh. In most other countries, (i.e. Mexico, European countries, etc.) ingredients are bought daily. When I went to Mexico I ate five times a day (full meals) and i lost weight (I don’t have a fast metabolism so this was a surprise). In addition, there is much more physical activity in other nations than America. People walk everywhere.</p>
<p>^nuh-uh, I know for a fact mexican food is pretty fatty, at least the good stuff is and if you eat it often. They do have healthier versions but generally that’s eaten by the wealthy also (there’s something about the wealthy mexicans, they’re incredibly skinny and naturally beautiful but the women are kinda trained to eat proper and take care of themselves to make good wives, a lot of them refuse alcohol and wouldn’t eat what the average mexican would eat).</p>
<p>Mexicans in mexico just work a hell of a lot harder and people walk more. Also a lot are actually starving, but the diet seriously is just tortillas and beans and thick rice and meat (and the meat has a lot of the fat left on so it’s more filling). I mean it tastes great but they make it a lot fattier there than they do in the US and the corn tortillas a thick.</p>
<p>I feel like if you went as a tourist then you might have been eating the healthier stuff (it’s like when people come to my city looking for “authentic texmex” or whatever so they go downtown which is not at all where the real food is and I would say that stuff is probably healthier but I don’t eat downtown a lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess my picture just isn’t as big as yours. Please describe your big picture. </p>
<p>Are you suggesting that Americans inherently want greasy food that’s quickly prepared–and that the price and economics behind it can’t change these desires? </p>
<p>How about we stop paying to make unhealthy foods cheap and see what happens? If you’re right, then obesity rates will stay high even when corn isn’t subsidized. In the meantime, we’re just wasting federal tax dollars.</p>
<p>There’s only one reason why fast food is unhealthy food: money. Unhealthy food is cheaper. </p>
<p>Why? Because it’s tough to transport healthy, liquid oils. They take up way too much truck space. It’s much cheaper to hydrogenate the oil and transport it as a solid to McDonald’s. It’s tough to store fresh veggies and fruits. It’s much easier for McDonald’s to store processed, dehydrated food. </p>
<p>Despite this, McDonald’s HAS switched to trans-free oils and IS trying to introduce fresh food items in their menu. Why? Because Americans don’t inherently love greasy food, and consumers are voicing their real opinions. Fast food may be part of American culture, but McDonald’s wouldn’t willingly switch to expensive oils if healthy food wasn’t also a growing part of this culture.</p>
<p>The problem is that we’re holding back the health food industry by encouraging the cheap production of unhealthy foods. Once we find cheap ways to dehydrogenate oils, we can use healthy oils instead of crude fat and veggie oil. Once we find better processing methods, processed meat won’t have to be crappy meat that eats at your heart.</p>
<p>But the private industry has no incentive to research and develop such methods, because they can’t compete with subsidized HFCS and hydrogenated oils. I’m not saying we should waste consumer tax dollars by subsidizing healthy foods. I’m just saying lets free up the markets and let healthy foods have a fair chance at competing with all the **** we currently call food. </p>
<p>You’re disincentivizing the growth of the health food industry by subsidizing corn. In essence, you’re spending tax dollars on a program that ultimately increases medical costs, reduces the return on private R&D, and shortens people’s lives. You don’t have to be fiscally liberal or fiscally conservative to support the end of corn subsidization. You just have to be human.</p>
<p>Edit: LULZ THAT WAS FUN</p>
<p>It wasn’t till recently that Americans became fat. many years ago, America was a lot more healthier because we were more active and ate better. There were more farms then, than there are now. I’m talking about maybe 70 to 60yrs ago. I just think we need to be more active and eat less. The funny thing is Americans, do care about themselves a lot. And want to eat right, but sometimes unhealthy food taste better than the healthy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Additionally, unhealthy food is much cheaper than healthy food.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sad, but true. And we have nothing but our subsidy policies to blame.</p>