The Republican Thread

[mr_genius]

Pathetic

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...ts-predict.html

 

HALF of U.S. population will be obese by 2030 experts predict as the number could swell to 164 million Americans

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...l#ixzz1WGSRYvlM

 

image the health care costs for all these people

[EvilMonkey]

Pathetic

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...ts-predict.html

 

 

 

image the health care costs for all these people

BUt havent they changed the definition of obese? I'l lbe honest, I am not a small guy, but according to the feds, I should be like 185lbs. I haven't been 185 since I was in high school, and the best shape i was in ever I was riding about 215. I was playing club volleyball every day, practicing with the girls basketball team every day (they only had 9 players, needed more for a full practice, so I got a workout!) and on tennis team. Certainly not 'over-weight'.

[mr_genius]

BUt havent they changed the definition of obese? I'l lbe honest, I am not a small guy, but according to the feds, I should be like 185lbs. I haven't been 185 since I was in high school, and the best shape i was in ever I was riding about 215. I was playing club volleyball every day, practicing with the girls basketball team every day (they only had 9 players, needed more for a full practice, so I got a workout!) and on tennis team. Certainly not 'over-weight'.

 

that is true, there are some issues with the BMI calculations. still though, there are too many obese people. when i say obese, i am talking about an extreme situation.

[NorthSideSox72]

that is true, there are some issues with the BMI calculations. still though, there are too many obese people. when i say obese, i am talking about an extreme situation.

It is a huge problem, no doubt. But Alpha is right that how the terms are defined is a little whacked-out and inconsistent.

 

I'm 6'3", and according to various listings I have seen, my weight should be 160 to 195, depending on who is interpereting what my weight should be. Now first of all, that's a big range. Second, if I reverse engineer the math in my fat % and BMI, in order to weight 160 pounds, I would have to have NEGATIVE 8% fat. Seriously, a guy who is 6'3" with any kind of muscle on him is never going to sniff 160 pounds, and will in fact struggle to be 190, even they are in shape. When I weighed 210 pounds, I was at 17% body fat, which is right about where I should be. Maybe 200 would be more ideal.

 

Point is, the numbers are fuzzy at best.

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm 6'3" 165 lbs

[Balta1701]

I'm 6'3" 165 lbs

[StrangeSox]

that's after working out all summer and adding weight. Runs in the family.

[NorthSideSox72]

that's after working out all summer and adding weight. Runs in the family.

Seriously? You must be one skinny dude.

 

But that sort of gets at my greater point - that for some people, 6'3" 165 might work just fine. Others, not so much. And both might be healthy, or both unhealthy, etc. The target weight ranges make broad assumptions.

 

[StrangeSox]

Seriously? You must be one skinny dude.

 

But that sort of gets at my greater point - that for some people, 6'3" 165 might work just fine. Others, not so much. And both might be healthy, or both unhealthy, etc. The target weight ranges make broad assumptions.

 

Yeah, my little brother's the exact same way, so's my grandfather (well, until the metabolism slowed down and the whiskey gut kicked in). One of my friends was as well until he went on a 4k calorie plus 2+ hours at the gym daily routine.

 

But as you say, BMI and weight ranges ares just a general guideline.

[southsider2k5]

Take note that the countries who are in worse shape are all either in financial meltdown, had a massive natural disaster, or the primary financers of the problems in Europe.

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/...overy-recession

 

Which economies have fared best and worst during the global financial crisis?

 

GDP growth rates slowed sharply in most rich economies in the second quarter. So where does that leave output relative to its level before the start of the financial crisis? If we rank the G7 countries according to the change in real GDP since the end of 2007, Canada tops the league. But Canada, like the United States, has a fast-growing population, whereas the number of Germans and Japanese has started to shrink. GDP per person is therefore a better measure of relative performance. As the chart below shows, by this gauge Canada is still 1% below its pre-crisis level and America is 3.5% down. Among the G7 countries only Germany has regained its end-2007 level. Comparing output now with its level before the crisis actually understates the depth of the slump. An alternative yardstick (see article) is to compare GDP per head now with what might have been expected if it had continued to grow at the same pace as during the ten years before the crisis. On this basis, even Germany has not yet caught up, and Ireland’s income per head is now a painful 25% below its previous trend.

 

[kapkomet]

So how come this s*** isn't thrown in our faces every single day like W.?

 

And this week, it's even lower.

[EvilMonkey]

So how come this s*** isn't thrown in our faces every single day like W.?

 

And this week, it's even lower.

I just like how it's always 'unexpected', just like every time unemployment goes up.

[Balta1701]

Because you guys don't post them?

 

I just like how it's always 'unexpected', just like every time unemployment goes up.

Seems like the "Expected" result of the "Debt ceiling deal" to me.

[NorthSideSox72]

So how come this s*** isn't thrown in our faces every single day like W.?

 

And this week, it's even lower.

Considering we're in the worst recession since the 30's, the partisan hackery in Congress, and the overall disappointing job Obama has done so far... I am honestly surprised the numbers aren't a lot worse.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Because you guys don't post them?

 

 

Seems like the "Expected" result of the "Debt ceiling deal" to me.

To you, me and most sane people. Read almost any news story and you will see that phrase preceding 'rise in unemployment', as if the newspapers never heard of such a thing happening before.

[southsider2k5]

To you, me and most sane people. Read almost any news story and you will see that phrase preceding 'rise in unemployment', as if the newspapers never heard of such a thing happening before.

 

Well except for the part about the downturn starting before the debt ceiling debate got going, which means economically this has nothing to do with that because it is impossible for it to torpedo the economy before the "compromise" actually happened.

[StrangeSox]

It's usually combined with "the markets" or "economists" anticipating a certain number, though I have no idea how they generate those expectations.

[Balta1701]

Well except for the part about the downturn starting before the debt ceiling debate got going, which means economically this has nothing to do with that because it is impossible for it to torpedo the economy before the "compromise" actually happened.

Hmmm, I could have swore that some group of people had argued that "uncertainty about future government policies" could do a lot of damage.

[southsider2k5]

Hmmm, I could have swore that some group of people had argued that "uncertainty about future government policies" could do a lot of damage.

 

Which also had nothing to do with the debt ceiling debate, and was going on for years before it.

[Balta1701]

Which also had nothing to do with the debt ceiling debate, and was going on for years before it.

And "will the U.S. government default on its obligations" is clearly not a source of any uncertainty. Why, if that were the case, the bond market would have cratered the second that deal was passed and people realized that bonds were safe and the economy wasn't going to be growing any time in the near future. Heck, we might have even seen negative yields on 7 year Treasuries.

[southsider2k5]

And "will the U.S. government default on its obligations" is clearly not a source of any uncertainty. Why, if that were the case, the bond market would have cratered the second that deal was passed and people realized that bonds were safe and the economy wasn't going to be growing any time in the near future. Heck, we might have even seen negative yields on 7 year Treasuries.

 

A nice bit of sales work, but turns in the economy don't happen overnight. The roots of what is happening now are from 6 months to a year ago, not last week.

[Balta1701]

A nice bit of sales work, but turns in the economy don't happen overnight. The roots of what is happening now are from 6 months to a year ago, not last week.

Actually, I don't believe it's the case that the debt ceiling debate caused the weakness either. I'm just illustrating the point that if "government uncertainty" is the problem, then the debt ceiling and current budget cut discussions are the epitome of government uncertainty.

 

I don't think government uncertainty or regulatory uncertainty is part of the problem. No one would care about the debt ceiling deal or react to it if there wasn't a huge and continuing lack of demand.

[southsider2k5]

Actually, I don't believe it's the case that the debt ceiling debate caused the weakness either. I'm just illustrating the point that if "government uncertainty" is the problem, then the debt ceiling and current budget cut discussions are the epitome of government uncertainty.

 

I don't think government uncertainty or regulatory uncertainty is part of the problem. No one would care about the debt ceiling deal or react to it if there wasn't a huge and continuing lack of demand.

 

Then again their wouldn't be a huge lack of demand if half of Barack's promises actually came true when it came to the economy.

[Balta1701]

Then again their wouldn't be a huge lack of demand if half of Barack's promises actually came true when it came to the economy.

There also wouldn't be a huge lack of demand if tax cuts, and especially upper class tax cuts, had a strong positive effect on the economy. Because we've done a ton of that.

[mr_genius]

I just like how it's always 'unexpected', just like every time unemployment goes up.

 

yea, i've noticed that. i suppose it's because the democrat boosters that work at most news media outlets are surprised. they still love Obama. why doesn't everyone else!?

Edited August 30, 2011 by mr_genius