PDA

View Full Version : 9 expensive junk foods, brought to you by Romney



Soflasnapper
10-20-2012, 03:49 PM
From the Fiscal Times (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2012/10/11/The-9-Most-Expensive-Junk-Foods.aspx?index=1) LOL!

I'm sure it's just a funny coincidence, but as of when I viewed that story at least (just now), the banner ad headline over these examples of wretched excess ($1,000 pizzas?) switched among a variety of Romney/Ryan ads.

Unintentionally, it offers a glimpse at the lifestyles of the rich and famous which group Romney and his supporters hail from.

There used to be jokes about freebasing, that it was God's way of letting you know you had too much money. All these gobsmackingly expensive FOOD items carry the same message.

But imagine the horrible impact on those purveying such, uh, delicacies (???), should their core clientele be forced into paying 3% more of their incomes in taxes. Surely they'd all go into bankruptcy. Wouldn't they?

eg8r
10-20-2012, 07:53 PM
Yep, while the food the poor and middle class eat has been skyrocketing month after month. Middle class on average make $4k less per year and their food and gas prices have risen considerably. Life is not better with Obama.

Ground beef, bacon, milk, etc (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/under-obama-price-gas-has-jumped-83-percent-ground-beef-24-percent-bacon-22-percent)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The U.S. city average retail price for one pound of 100 percent ground beef was $2.36 in January 2009. As of December 2011, that price had risen to $2.92—a 23.7 percent increase and a new peak. (Ground beef prices have risen every month since November 2009 – 26 months of price increases.)

Whole wheat bread prices from January 2009 to December 2011 increased about five percent (5.02 percent) from $1.97 to $2.07. (The inflation rate in December 2011 was 3.0 percent.)

Among the first 36 months of Obama’s presidency, the last four (September, October, November, December) showed the average price of one pound of whole wheat bread hovering slightly above two dollars.

Other refrigerated items like ice cream and bacon have increased by substantial amounts.

Ice cream prices, for a half-gallon, were $4.44 in January 2009 and $5.25 in December 2011, an increase of 19.1 percent.

One pound of sliced bacon in January 2009 was $3.73 and in December 2011 had climbed $4.55, an increase of 22 percent. The price hit a high in September 2011 at $4.82 per pound.

Whole milk prices averaged above three dollars 33 out of the 36 months since Obama took office. In January 2009, the price for one gallon of whole milk was $3.58; but by December 2011, milk prices had slightly declined less than one percent (0.28 percent) to $3.57 per gallon.

The average retail price of Grade A eggs per dozen from January 2009 to December 2011 increased by less than two percent (1.30 percent) from $1.85 to $1.87.
</div></div>

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-20-2012, 11:25 PM
It's shocking to you that severe and record droughts across the country result in increased meat and dairy costs, even though the cattle feedstock was severely impacted (since it too is grown)?

Why is Obama holding back the weather machine? Another cover up? Or maybe he should have halted global warming and its attendant 500-year weather events.

The 'skyrocketing' figures cited are for a 3-year period. Beef up less than 8% a year is the worst skyrocketing cited. Bread up 1.6% a year. Milk an average -.09% drop per year, and eggs, 0.46% per year increase. All figures are actually less due to compounding.

Qtec
10-21-2012, 04:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is Obama holding back the weather machine? </div></div>

That's the question every Tea Party member wants to know. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

..and eg8r, LWW,Lotter etc etc

They call him incompetent and a moron etc and then criticize him for not being omnipotent!

Q

Soflasnapper
10-21-2012, 12:20 PM
So true. When he isn't entirely incompetent, he is evil genius incarnate. Too weak, no, too tough and dictatorial.

They switch depending upon which narrative works best for the particular case.

LWW
10-21-2012, 12:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> From the Fiscal Times (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2012/10/11/The-9-Most-Expensive-Junk-Foods.aspx?index=1) LOL!

I'm sure it's just a funny coincidence, but as of when I viewed that story at least (just now), the banner ad headline over these examples of wretched excess ($1,000 pizzas?) switched among a variety of Romney/Ryan ads.

Unintentionally, it offers a glimpse at the lifestyles of the rich and famous which group Romney and his supporters hail from.

There used to be jokes about freebasing, that it was God's way of letting you know you had too much money. All these gobsmackingly expensive FOOD items carry the same message.

But imagine the horrible impact on those purveying such, uh, delicacies (???), should their core clientele be forced into paying 3% more of their incomes in taxes. Surely they'd all go into bankruptcy. Wouldn't they? </div></div>

Why do you take issue with somoe paying $1K of their own money or a pizza ... yet have no issue over Obama flying in a chef from Pi's in Saint Louis to fix pizza for lunch at a cst of many thousands of the people's money?

Explain to me again how you hold such conflicted opinions yet don't see Obama as a godking deserving of such treatment by the proletariat?

Soflasnapper
10-21-2012, 12:44 PM
I support the rights to exercise wretched excess for those with the means. I support the rights of the POTUS to exercise the perquisites of his office available and formerly used by other holders of that office.

My point is that when you have so much money that you are literally pouring gold on your food and then eating it, it is more than a little rich for such types to complain, howling, about how abused and I guess they claim poor they will become with another 3% on their top marginal tax rate.

Clue for them: don't eat pizzas with 50 kinds of the most expensive caviar on it, or be rightly derided and dismissed on your plaintive bleatings.

LWW
10-21-2012, 01:08 PM
That wasn't your initial claim ... your initial was that this overindulgence was "BROUGHT TO YOU BY ROMNEY" when that obviously was a falsehood posited to promote class warfare.

As to your parroted tax argument, it's wrong on several levels.

First off taxing wealth and taxing income are different things entirely.

Let me give you examples. The wife and I probably aren't one percenters when it comes to when net worth, but ... we are easily to to three percenters.

A three percent income tax raise on income over $250K in income will not affect us directly at all ... because we are now living on wealth and not income.The income ... as opposed to CG and interest I earn is far below that level and is basically to keep me from being bored and to support hobbies.

I can afford a grand pappy for a pizza, but have the sense not to. When I was in the big earning years however, I was far less likely to buy such an extravagance since I was working 60 to 100 hours a week. Now, with time on my hands, I have engaged in some similar extravagances.

Now, if the idea is to tax such extravagance ... an income tax hike doesn't achieve it, where a consumption tax would.

That being said, I would actually support a tax increase on folks such as myself ... if I could see it was actually being used to reduce the deficit issue.

History has however taught me that any additional revenue will simply feed the beast.

Until we have a congress and POTUS actually committed to putting the beast on a diet, any additional taxes will simply make the problem worse and the eventual solution more painful.

Soflasnapper
10-21-2012, 02:14 PM
My initial claim was to say this:

I'm sure it's just a funny coincidence, but as of when I viewed that story at least (just now), the banner ad headline over these examples of wretched excess ($1,000 pizzas?) switched among a variety of Romney/Ryan ads.

Unintentionally, it offers a glimpse at the lifestyles of the rich and famous which group Romney and his supporters hail from.

I immediately referred to the coincidence, and the appearance, that this was 'brought to you by Romney,' while disclaiming it as a funny coincidence and an unintended conclusion one could infer, ironically but wrongly.

The excesses of conspicuous consumption these few items represent barely scrape the bottom of the barrel, compared to multi-million dollar birthday or anniversary parties, multi-million dollar weddings, private hiring of this or that current pop star at $500k or $1 million dollar fees to perform, etc.

Even Paul Ryan's hosts treated the table to $800 per bottle wine-- several such bottles.

Good for them. Just don't tell me of their plight of victimization when that income and/or wealth cohort is asked to pay a smallish fraction more on their income above the top threshold, as you yourself say you might favor.

When EVER has such an increase led to a reduced deficit? How soon we forget the later '90s, when it did exactly that. I know you cling bitterly to your claim that there never was a balanced budget, although it's been fully explained. Now, do you really want to EXTEND and REVISE your adamantly held false claim to say that neither was there any deficit reduction during those years?

The formula worked then, and it is not ancient history. Do any alleged deficit hawks from the GOP support what actually worked within their time in Washington? Of course not (perhaps with the honorable exception of the retiring Sen. Coburn (R-OK) and the already retired several moderate Republicans).

LWW
10-21-2012, 04:02 PM
So how did this get to be the thread title?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">#401903 - 10/20/12 05:49 PM 9 expensive junk foods, brought to you by Romney</div></div>

Soflasnapper
10-21-2012, 05:34 PM
Because it HAD THAT ACCIDENTAL APPEARANCE, as was quite clear from the immediate first part of the post. As signified by the very first LOL! if you couldn't get it from the first sentences.

It's the same way that left-leaning sites get grief from their normal readers when their placement of Google-Ads ends up with an ad for the right-leaning politicos. It's an incorrect appearance, not due to either the ad-buyer or the site itself, and strictly up to whichever banner placement ad provider is involved.

eg8r
10-22-2012, 10:54 AM
LOL, this was the left when referring to Bush. Hilarious. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r