Bloomberg bans donations of some food to the poor/homeless.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by classicaliberal, Nov 12, 2012.

  1. classicaliberal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 12, 2012

    macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #1
    Don't worry everyone, big government and liberalism will take care of the needy. We don't need your we don't need your charity and willful giving. We will take what we need from you via coercion and taxation, and buy the poor people food that won't make them overweight! Damn you private charities, damn you religious charities, your disgusting nutrient and calorie rich foods are no longer welcome here in New York. Our homeless deserve better, and we're willing to steal and redistribute resources to ensure they get it only from us, nanny state government.

    http://now.msn.com/hard-to-swallow-bloomberg-bans-food-donations-to-homeless-shelters

     
  2. macrumors 68040

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #2
    what an ass
     
  3. AhmedFaisal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013

    Guest

    #3
    <snip>
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #4
    We?

    By the way "big tobacco" is still making billions and doing fine.

    Not sure how you "took them down."
     
  5. AhmedFaisal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013

    Guest

    #5
    <snip>
     
  6. thread starter macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #6
    Do you honestly think banning the charitable giving of food to the homeless is a good thing? Because a particular food given might be high in calories (a fresh homemade pecan pie, or a full size Christmas ham, for instance)?

    Sometimes it seems all to evident that for many on the left, it's not the poor or the homeless they really care about... it's just the power to control others because their obviously superior (sarcasm) intelligence allows them to understand what's best for everyone else in society.

    Fascism, authoritarianism, evil... whatever you want to call it... it's pretty sick. It's the opposite of liberty and the absence of free will. It's society's natural tendency towards dictatorship and authoritarianism rearing it's ugly head again and again.
     
  7. Anuba, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012

    macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #7
    Yeah, or canned pork brains with 1170% the recommended daily intake of cholesterol. Imagine hordes of people in ragged clothing, roaming the streets for "more brrrraaaaaiins".

    Yup, can't take that tendency out of the human race. That's why we invented the concept of democracy, so that whoever the ****** at the top is, at least he was elected by the people. Otherwise, what's to stop Donald Trump from becoming the most powerful individual?
     
  8. classicaliberal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012

    thread starter macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #8
    It's like I'm in an episode of Seinfeld.
    http://www.youtube.com/embed/0eipl17WpOo


    First of all, I'm guessing the cases of 'pork brains' is probably pretty low. I'm guessing the VAST MAJORITY of food given via charity is delicous and full of live-giving nutrients. It's not like the person running the shelter HAS to serve what they're given!!

    BTW, calories are essential for life. A food higher in calories simply means you have to eat less of that food to reach your daily need for calories.

    I swear this country is going insane. Calories (aka life giving energy) are now somehow labeled as bad or harmful for homeless people without the means to earn, catch, or grow their own food. We're actually FORBIDDING private citizens from providing homeless people with food. Won't any liberal or Democrat stand up against this insanity?


    And yet, even though you're seemingly aware of this tendency... you seem 100% willing and able to run towards it as fast as possible thinking it's fin as long as you're holding the flag of democracy as if a majority voting against the human rights of the minority has never occurred in human history.
     
  9. AhmedFaisal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013

    Guest

    #9
    <snip>
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana, US
    #10
    I think there is some logic to banning types of food. For example, a 128oz Coke is killing you. Fatty foods to the starving isn't. I'm not sure if government banning dangerous things is a left/right issue, but apparently identifying what is dangerous is.
     
  11. macrumors 603

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #11
    I haven't paid attention to tobacco brands as I'm not that interested in them. Hasn't their profitability hinged on exports in recent years?
     
  12. AhmedFaisal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013

    Guest

    #12
    <snip>
     
  13. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #13
    Why are junk food people criminals? They follow all government guidelines, and the food they sell isn't literally addictive. We know what's in it and have a good idea about the effects.

    You can dislike them, hell I refuse to eat the stuff, but it's hardly fair to label an industry criminals because the food they sell isn't vegan approved.
     
  14. macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #14
    Recognizing the futility of one thing is not the same as running towards the alternative blindfolded. What do you want? You share the planet with 7 billion other flock animals of the same species as yourself and living in hierarchical structures is in our ROM, not RAM.

    You want untethered free will? OK, maybe my free will says I want to kill all red haired people. It's my free will and therefore my right. No wait, you're not allowed to kill people. Says who? Says the vast majority.
    Dang, OK. New rule. You're not allowed to kill people or steal their stuff. The right to ownership and life is universal. Says who? Says the vast majority. Hmm, but then we must have someone to uphold those rights. Guess we need to form a union of sorts, maybe a state. Hmm, making up rules here... need everyone else to go along with these rules... but not everyone will... so maybe we need majority rule.
    Aaaaand... fast forward to what we have today.
     
  15. AhmedFaisal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013

    Guest

    #15
    <snip>
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #16
    What is he going to ban next? carbon monoxide? sex? butter knives?
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #17
    It's a misguided solution. Giving a can of this or that doesn't adequately meet one's nutritional needs. And if forces the organization to make distributional decisions that aren't optimal.

    Bloomberg is following the Red Cross model: don't give us food, clothes, or blankets. Give us money and we'll be better able to decide what our needs are and how to address them.

    It makes sense to me.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #18
    I'm pretty darn liberal, but I think this is stupid. I don't go into crazed rants of "big government socialist marxists trampling on my liberties", but I'll say I think this is a pretty useless piece of legislation.
     
  19. macrumors 68020

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #19
    Banning canned food for too much salt and going after junk food like McDonald's are two completely different things. This thread seems to be off-topic. I'm pretty sure the homeless have much more important health issues to worry about then fatty canned food.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #20
    I am confused. Should we not be responsible for our own actions? Do I really need someone to tell me that Taco Bell is bad for me? If I care about my health or weight I will not eat there. It is very concerning that some feel they have to control others lives. The problem is that you have no issue controlling mine, but would have big issues if I controlled yours.

    ----------

    I totally understand where you are coming from, but the reason I like to donate food, clothing, etc is to decrease the temptation to misuse money. This way I know the people in need are getting 100% of what I give. With money you never know. Not saying my way is right or any better, but just the logic behind sending goods instead of money.
     
  21. AhmedFaisal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013

    Guest

    #21
    <snip>
     
  22. macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #22
    He could ban egg farts, those are stanky.
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #23
    That is a great idea. Someone left me one of those as I got on the elevator. Oh....wait...It was I who left it.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #24
    I do have some knowledge of what food bank donations look like, and, they tend to be very high in sugar and starch and largely qualify as empty calories. It turns out that this is generally not what people need to be eating. In fact, right after WWII evidence started to come in that you needed to be careful with what you give even liberated starving prison camp inmates. And, who needs calories more desperately than prison camp inmates do?

    Even back in the 30's, people started to become aware that you could be "hungry" and yet, what you needed was not more starch.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwashiorkor

    I applaud the mayor for trying to find ways to help people eat more healthily.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Among the starlings
    #25
    OK, I agree that's a little overboard on Bloomberg's part (and this is from someone who voted for the guy).

    That said, I don't think it's totally ridiculous. A shelter can't do much with a couple 14-oz cans of dehydrated soup or rice-a-roni -- the volunteer time needed to prepare just a few of those is the time it takes to prepare one of the dishes in a meal for a hundred people. City homeless shelters feed hundreds of people at each meal -- unless they're getting this stuff by the case it's just going to sit on the shelf taking up space (which is at a premium in any location in the city) and won't even begin to make a dent in the need.

    Even without donations of cans, the city doesn't pay for all the food that goes to homeless shelters. There are some amazing nonprofits such as City Harvest that provide a lot of their supplies.

    (City Harvest collects unpurchased leftovers from restaurants, supermarkets, bakeries, etc, as well as produce from regional farms that would otherwise go unharvested due to market inefficiencies, and brings it to food pantries and homeless shelters in the city. They have very high standards for sanitation and quality, and prevent a lot of food from going to waste and a lot of people form going hungry -- if you're looking for a nonprofit to support this holiday season, I highly recommend them [and no, I'm in no way affiliated except as an occasional donor].)

    However, I believe food pantries still take donations of canned food, because they are able to give away food in the amount of a single can. And yeah, at a food pantry, the person receiving the food has the opportunity to review the nutritional information on the package and let that influence their decision to change the portions they eat, or pair it with a different food than they otherwise might, or even choose something else off the shelf.
     

Share This Page