What's wrong with Michelle Obama ....

[keee keee]

What is wrong with a First Lady ... or any other person of prominence ... encouraging healthy habits in children?

I've been having trouble with my fellow conservatives having trouble with this. Can someone set me straight on why I should be concerned?

Because Michelle Obama is a hypocrite. She tells everyone else to eat this way and does the complete opisite.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree. I don't think most able bodied people using government money to buy food should get the money. They should instead be issued as many 50 lb sacks of rice and beans as they can use for their family and maybe some canned corn, turnip greens, and vitamin C supplement to round out the protein and accommodate bare nutritional needs and nothing else. That would quite nicely stave off any hunger. Those who want steaks or other variety should get a job.

But when I buy my own food with money I worked for or otherwise honorably acquired, I don't want the government dictating to me what I can and cannot have.

The government should limit its influence in making the food supply as safe as reasonably possible and in providing the information to utilize the food for maximum benefit. It should not otherwise be requiring restaurants or anybody else to furnish certain foods and eliminate others. I have no problem with a requirement that the restaurant or other supplier furnish information on the content of the food.

Then let the free market work for a free people. If people aren't buying the high fat, high salt content foods, the suppliers will provide food they will buy. It's as simple as that.

I agree....

Those on welfare should be given gruel and roadkill to eat

Why should they eat as well as us 53%. ?

Why should they get ding dongs, cokes, and doretos ? Mothers who get WIC can only use that to get foods that are good for the mother and babe. Why is it bad to do the same with food stamps ? Mechelle Obama has stated herself that obesity is more prevalent among the poor. Most of the poor receive food stamps, what better way to affect the problem then requiring That the money be spent on healthy food?

Why does "Junk food shouldn't be bought with tax money" always lead to "we should make those fatsos buy what WE think they should have" instead of "tax dollars shouldn't be given out to support people in the first place"? It's like people have just blanked out the possibility of being offended by the Nanny State in general, and are now only able to be offended by a Nanny State that doesn't control lives the way they want it to.

 

[Unkotare]

Notice the 300 lbs linemen on foot ball. .

Notice what about them?

 

[rightwinger]

Well isn't the government making welfare an attractive option actually faciitating a form of slavery? Check out Mr. T's thread on government and the Stockholm Syndrome. The conservative usually looks for ways to help the poor out of poverty. The liberal usually looks to make the poor more comfortable in poverty. Which looks the more compassionate to you?

What have Conservatives done to help the poor out of poverty? Cut education programs? Cut childcare and healthcare? Threaten to raise their taxes?

Can you name a nation on earth where the poor did better by removing all assitance? Mexico does less for their poor....how much of an incentive was that to do better?

We have spent more than 10 TRILLION dollars on the war on poverty and the poor are still with us, we have more people living below the poverty line now than we did 50 years ago, and there is almost NO government incentive provided for correcting that situation.

The Stockholm Syndrome is of course the captives developing sympathy for the captors. That is what has happened to the American left. Instead of realizing that it was government that created a lot of the problem, they want to blame something else now and continue to look at government as the source of all compassion and goodness.

Conservatives are not victims of the Stockholm Syndrome and see a better way to accomplish goals that both the right and left say they want.

It is disingenuous to say that conservatives have no concern for the poor or that they are doing nothing for the poor. It is abject brainwashing and foolishness, with all the evidence to the contrary, to believe that government is the solution to the problem.

What have conservatives done to help the poor other than ignore them?

Millions of Americans have escaped poverty since the sixties. Ask them if they benefited from training and education, childcare and jobs programs.

 

[Katzndogz]

We have spent more than 10 TRILLION dollars on the war on poverty and the poor are still with us, we have more people living below the poverty line now than we did 50 years ago, and there is almost NO government incentive provided for correcting that situation.

The poor will always be with us because poverty is relative. You are only as poor as the person next up is rich. To some poor, our poor are beyond imagining wealthy. To the billionaires, the mere millionaires are poor.

We have more people living below the poverty line than we did 50 years ago because the poverty line is fluid today and it was not 50 years ago. Poverty now depends on where you live, not what your income is. A family of four living on $65,000 a year in Pasadena lives below the poverty line. That same family with that same income in Appalachia is quite well off.

We have fought a war on poverty by the application of paying people a living wage to be poor. We have a new concept. Poverty must be comfortable. In fact so comfortable that there is little to no incentive to move out of poverty. This is the third, or is it fourth, generation of generational welfare and poverty. Likely to increase exponentially. A girl raised on welfare today expects to get pregnant as a means of generating her own income and getting her own place. Years ago, it would be a first job and a roommate to move out of the parental home.

The one thing we can no longer do is make people not want to be poor. They want to be poor, they just want to be more comfortably poor.

 

[syrenn]

People don't go to fast food restaurants for their health. They go for the guilty pleasure of a quick meal that they enjoy eating. They will spend about the same there as they would at the soup and salad bar down the street or ordering from the Seniors or 'healthy choice' menu at the restaurant across the street, but they want the taste of that Whopper, fries, and Coke over ice. And yes, sometimes they like going through the drive through and getting it fast and eating it in the car while driving too.

I am all for Michelle or whomever to keep hammering home the benefits of a healthy diet and the benefits of particular foods and the harmful effects of over salting, trans fat, destruction of vitamins in preparation, excess preservatives, etc. etc. etc. in our food, but I am 100% opposed to taking away the right of people to buy what they want, healthy or not.

Thats cool, but if you are using government money to buy food you should not have a say.

And who will be the food police?

Not having a loaded credit card would be the first thing. A list of what is allowed and not allowed, what it will buy and not buy.... no food police required.

 

[syrenn]

I agree. I don't think most able bodied people using government money to buy food should get the money. They should instead be issued as many 50 lb sacks of rice and beans as they can use for their family and maybe some canned corn, turnip greens, and vitamin C supplement to round out the protein and accommodate bare nutritional needs and nothing else. That would quite nicely stave off any hunger. Those who want steaks or other variety should get a job.

But when I buy my own food with money I worked for or otherwise honorably acquired, I don't want the government dictating to me what I can and cannot have.

The government should limit its influence in making the food supply as safe as reasonably possible and in providing the information to utilize the food for maximum benefit. It should not otherwise be requiring restaurants or anybody else to furnish certain foods and eliminate others. I have no problem with a requirement that the restaurant or other supplier furnish information on the content of the food.

Then let the free market work for a free people. If people aren't buying the high fat, high salt content foods, the suppliers will provide food they will buy. It's as simple as that.

I agree....

Those on welfare should be given gruel and roadkill to eat

Why should they eat as well as us 53%. ?

Why should they get ding dongs, cokes, and doretos ? Mothers who get WIC can only use that to get foods that are good for the mother and babe. Why is it bad to do the same with food stamps ? Mechelle Obama has stated herself that obesity is more prevalent among the poor. Most of the poor receive food stamps, what better way to affect the problem then requiring That the money be spent on healthy food?

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Foxfyre]

What have Conservatives done to help the poor out of poverty? Cut education programs? Cut childcare and healthcare? Threaten to raise their taxes?

Can you name a nation on earth where the poor did better by removing all assitance? Mexico does less for their poor....how much of an incentive was that to do better?

We have spent more than 10 TRILLION dollars on the war on poverty and the poor are still with us, we have more people living below the poverty line now than we did 50 years ago, and there is almost NO government incentive provided for correcting that situation.

The Stockholm Syndrome is of course the captives developing sympathy for the captors. That is what has happened to the American left. Instead of realizing that it was government that created a lot of the problem, they want to blame something else now and continue to look at government as the source of all compassion and goodness.

Conservatives are not victims of the Stockholm Syndrome and see a better way to accomplish goals that both the right and left say they want.

It is disingenuous to say that conservatives have no concern for the poor or that they are doing nothing for the poor. It is abject brainwashing and foolishness, with all the evidence to the contrary, to believe that government is the solution to the problem.

What have conservatives done to help the poor other than ignore them?

Millions of Americans have escaped poverty since the sixties. Ask them if they benefited from training and education, childcare and jobs programs.

Conservatives give more out of their own pockets to help the poor; conservatives look for ways to lead or drive people out of poverty as we did in the 90's with welfare reform. Conservatives want to wrest control of education from the government so that we can actually start giving the kids an education that will equip them to compete with anybody again. Conservatives know that healthy self esteem comes from accomplishment, a job, success, and self sufficiency and seeks to heap such blessings on others.

What have liberals done to help the poor other than throw other people's money at them and then feel righteous?

 

[syrenn]

Actually, I am pretty much in line with your concentration camp inspired diet

What is your recommended punishment if we catch them eating a Twinkie?

No problem. They probably found a dollar on the sidewalk and I have no problem with having some fun with it. But I am from the Ben Franklin school that suggests that we serve the poor badly and even cruelly by making them comfortable in poverty. Rather we should lead or drive them out of it. Boring the heck out of them would probably serve the same purpose without being mean in the least.

I have worked in the projects. I have yet to see a 'comfortable' poor family. The 'comfortable' poor family is the invention of the middle class.

They are more "comfortable" then they would be without the section 8 housing and entitlements. "Comfortable" is a relative term.

 

[Unkotare]

[

What have conservatives done to help the poor other than ignore them?

Millions of Americans have escaped poverty since the sixties. Ask them if they benefited from training and education, childcare and jobs programs.

Ask them if they benefitted from economic growth and opportunity. Now go ask the folks living in housing projects if living there has made their lives better.

 

[syrenn]

I think the oversalting is to act like a preservative since most of the food is pre-prepared and shipped across the country to the chain restaurants. Not because of laziness.

End result is the same, but there is an actual reason for it I believe.

No, the salt is not there as a preservative. It is there becasue of blind taste testing. Fast food is engineered to taste good. The high salt content is there becasue that is what the costumer base has said they want to taste. It is what they enjoy. If the food did not taste good it would not sell. If if something does not sell it is pulled from the menu or reworked to be more appealing.

Plus, Westwall is talking about an entire onion, cut apart, battered, and deep-fried, and his bitch is that it has too much salt?! Yeah, THAT'S why it's unhealthy. If you have problems with sodium, you DON'T order the equivalent of five or six orders of onion rings, for Christ's sake.

There are certain foods that are expected to be served salty: French fries, movie popcorn, and ONION RINGS. You don't change the recipe for everyone to suit your personal preferences; you just DON'T ORDER THOSE FOODS.

How about the person on a low fat diet? The deep fried onion( or onion rings) are not a good choice.

ALL fast food places ,McD ,burger king and the like.... are more then happy to make you a batch of french fires without salt.... you just have to wait for the next round of fries.

 

[Unkotare]

If you're on a low-fat diet what the hell are you doing in McDonald's?

 

[Foxfyre]

I currently work with the 'poor'.

Not all but many are miserable, angry, frustrated people who resent their lot in life. Not all but many have a roof over their heads, ample clothing in their closets, food in their pantries and in the refrigerator that is often new and more modern than mine, all have a radio and one or more television sets, often flat screen, and most have a form of transportation or live hear a bus stop. A whole lot of them also have a $5 pack of cigs beside the armchair and some sort of liquor on the counter. They don't have a lot of extra cash, however, and their children will often go without what others of us would consider basic necessities such as school supplies unless those are furnished to them. And it usually is via the private sector.

These people are 'poor' by U.S. standards. They are unimaginably rich when compared to most of the world"s 'poor'.

My job is to help marginally educated people learn how to budget and manage their money, basics of nutrition, basics of hygiene when that is necessary, and what opportunities there are for them to prepare themselves for something better.

We have succeeded in helping many get moving to dig themselves out of the hole they are in and there is nothing more exhilarating than when somebody finally lands their dream job and no longer need our input or help.

There are others though that bring us back to reality when they flat out announce that they just don't want to put in the effort to do anything different. Why work their butt off when they have their cigs, their beer, and their soaps and don't really want anything different?

I fear Michelle's nutrition program isn't really doing much to inspire many of these folks either. But if they vote at all, they'll all vote for Obama a year from November.

 

[rightwinger]

[

What have conservatives done to help the poor other than ignore them?

Millions of Americans have escaped poverty since the sixties. Ask them if they benefited from training and education, childcare and jobs programs.

Ask them if they benefitted from economic growth and opportunity. Now go ask the folks living in housing projects if living there has made their lives better.

Economic Growth and opportunity? Where have you been?

The richest 5% of the country has monopolized the economic growth and opportunity. Standard of living has declined.

Where was all that trickle down that was promised?

 

[bodecea]

Damn uppity...

You hit the point exactly.

 

[Sunshine]

Thats cool, but if you are using government money to buy food you should not have a say.

I agree. I don't think most able bodied people using government money to buy food should get the money. They should instead be issued as many 50 lb sacks of rice and beans as they can use for their family and maybe some canned corn, turnip greens, and vitamin C supplement to round out the protein and accommodate bare nutritional needs and nothing else. That would quite nicely stave off any hunger. Those who want steaks or other variety should get a job.

But when I buy my own food with money I worked for or otherwise honorably acquired, I don't want the government dictating to me what I can and cannot have.

The government should limit its influence in making the food supply as safe as reasonably possible and in providing the information to utilize the food for maximum benefit. It should not otherwise be requiring restaurants or anybody else to furnish certain foods and eliminate others. I have no problem with a requirement that the restaurant or other supplier furnish information on the content of the food.

Then let the free market work for a free people. If people aren't buying the high fat, high salt content foods, the suppliers will provide food they will buy. It's as simple as that.

I agree....

Those on welfare should be given gruel and roadkill to eat

Why should they eat as well as us 53%. ?

They would just bring it to Kentucky and trade it for chicken.

 

[Unkotare]

[

What have conservatives done to help the poor other than ignore them?

Millions of Americans have escaped poverty since the sixties. Ask them if they benefited from training and education, childcare and jobs programs.

Ask them if they benefitted from economic growth and opportunity. Now go ask the folks living in housing projects if living there has made their lives better.

Economic Growth and opportunity? Where have you been??

The United States of America (mostly). Where have you been?

 

[bodecea]

What is wrong with a First Lady ... or any other person of prominence ... encouraging healthy habits in children?

I've been having trouble with my fellow conservatives having trouble with this. Can someone set me straight on why I should be concerned?

I have a problem with it when her "whims" effect MY diet.... Let ME decide what is good for and MY family!

Oh, and then there is this.....

Darden Restaurants — the company that owns the Olive Garden, Red Lobster, LongHorn Steakhouse and others announced recently that it will cut the “calorie footprint” and sodium levels in its meals and create new kids’ menus to comply with the first lady’s public health objectives.

Whats not mentioned is in return, that allows them to avoid some of the insurance mandates of ObamaCare.

Yep... its all about the "children"

I AM SICK OF THEM MEDDLING IN MY PRIVATE AFFAIRS!!!

Of course she has forced you to change your eating habits.

 

[Sunshine]

No problem. They probably found a dollar on the sidewalk and I have no problem with having some fun with it. But I am from the Ben Franklin school that suggests that we serve the poor badly and even cruelly by making them comfortable in poverty. Rather we should lead or drive them out of it. Boring the heck out of them would probably serve the same purpose without being mean in the least.

I have worked in the projects. I have yet to see a 'comfortable' poor family. The 'comfortable' poor family is the invention of the middle class.

They are more "comfortable" then they would be without the section 8 housing and entitlements. "Comfortable" is a relative term.

Most do not live in Section 8 housing. And the projects are definitely NOT comfortable. I heard gunfire more than once when I worked there. I was never 'comfortable' there. Most are fearful of the gangs and they don't let their kids out of the house alone. I don't blame them. Low income housing is not the picture of "comfort" even in comparison to the poor around the world.

 

[Sunshine]

I currently work with the 'poor'.

Not all but many are miserable, angry, frustrated people who resent their lot in life. Not all but many have a roof over their heads, ample clothing in their closets, food in their pantries and in the refrigerator that is often new and more modern than mine, all have a radio and one or more television sets, often flat screen, and most have a form of transportation or live hear a bus stop. A whole lot of them also have a $5 pack of cigs beside the armchair and some sort of liquor on the counter. They don't have a lot of extra cash, however, and their children will often go without what others of us would consider basic necessities such as school supplies unless those are furnished to them. And it usually is via the private sector.

These people are 'poor' by U.S. standards. They are unimaginably rich when compared to most of the world"s 'poor'.

My job is to help marginally educated people learn how to budget and manage their money, basics of nutrition, basics of hygiene when that is necessary, and what opportunities there are for them to prepare themselves for something better.

We have succeeded in helping many get moving to dig themselves out of the hole they are in and there is nothing more exhilarating than when somebody finally lands their dream job and no longer need our input or help.

There are others though that bring us back to reality when they flat out announce that they just don't want to put in the effort to do anything different. Why work their butt off when they have their cigs, their beer, and their soaps and don't really want anything different?

I fear Michelle's nutrition program isn't really doing much to inspire many of these folks either. But if they vote at all, they'll all vote for Obama a year from November.

The seriously and persistently mentally ill will never, short of some miracle drug, be out there on their own. And they are not comfortable. I see them buying generic cigarettes and cheap hooch, the ones who smoke and/or drink. Not all of them smoke and/or drink. Never saw any Scotch in those homes. Some of them do spend what money they have unwisely. But poor judgement is part of most serious mental illnesses. If it is bad enough they have to have a guardian and there are plenty of banks, lawyers, and guardianship companies who do that kind of work.