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

    classicaliberal macrumors regular


    Jul 19, 2011
    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.

  2. AhmedFaisal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  3. thewitt macrumors 68020


    Sep 13, 2011

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

    Not sure how you "took them down."
  4. AhmedFaisal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  5. classicaliberal thread starter macrumors regular


    Jul 19, 2011
    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.
  6. Anuba, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012

    Anuba macrumors 68040


    Feb 9, 2005
    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?
  7. classicaliberal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012

    classicaliberal thread starter macrumors regular


    Jul 19, 2011
    It's like I'm in an episode of Seinfeld.

    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.
  8. AhmedFaisal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  9. dscuber9000 macrumors 6502a

    Sep 16, 2007
    Indiana, US
    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.
  10. thekev macrumors 604


    Aug 5, 2010
    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?
  11. AhmedFaisal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  12. eric/ Guest


    Sep 19, 2011
    Ohio, United States
    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.
  13. Anuba macrumors 68040


    Feb 9, 2005
    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.
  14. AhmedFaisal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  15. NickZac macrumors 68000


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

    Mar 22, 2010
    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.
  17. samiwas macrumors 68000

    Aug 26, 2006
    Atlanta, GA
    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.
  18. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68040


    Feb 9, 2010
    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.
  19. tshrimp macrumors 6502


    Mar 30, 2012
    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.
  20. AhmedFaisal, Nov 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  21. Anuba macrumors 68040


    Feb 9, 2005
    He could ban egg farts, those are stanky.
  22. tshrimp macrumors 6502


    Mar 30, 2012
    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.
  23. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816


    Feb 11, 2010
    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.

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

    Oct 21, 2009
    Among the starlings
    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