Thu, 10/07/2010 - 9:35am — MsExPat
Sorry to link twice in a row to Izvestia
, but there's just so much in there to get upset about this morning!
New York Asks to Bar Use of Food Stamps to Buy Sodas
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg sought federal permission on Wednesday to bar New York City’s 1.7 million recipients of food stamps from using them to buy soda or other sugared drinks.
The noblesse oblige of this is choking me. Bloomberg, as my fellow New Yorkers will remember, is the mayor who decided he had to have a third term, even though NYC has a term limit law. So he just strong armed the city council to repeal it. Because...well, he knows best!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
»
- MsExPat's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
Bloomberg needs Alanon mtgs ... for power and control addiction
... yeah, soda is definitely America's main problem. Let's go after the VICTIMS of the raping and pillaging of the economy and take away their sodas.
You know when the economy got its shakeups in the 80s I was working late shifts at law firms doing temp word-processing. The vast majority of law firms across NYC simultaneously forbade their late night employees from listening to their walkmen as they worked. As if that apparently "pilfered" joy of enjoying music at the workplace was part of the problem! It was never addressed or protested since it wasn't considered a right (though it enhanced quality of job life for disempowered employees but who cared when the top was so frustrated by its systemic incompetence coming home to roost), just forbidden with that chilling arbitrariness of those with complete power who have free floating frustration and want an easy target to punish and make themselves feel in control over.
Power and control addiction.
Of the consumer protections needed right now, banning soda drinking from the most vulnerable citizens is insufferably arrogant.
Consciousness raise about nutrition AFTER cleaning up rampant unethical financial abuse. Fight the fights that need addressing, Mikey!!!
Bloomberg hungry to be president. The void is there and he's got the money and the ego.
Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare. (Japanese proverb)
Nail on Head
You've hit it.
One of the things I was musing about last night is how life in the oughts has been so drained of all human pleasure, compared to life in, say, the 1970s and 80s. The only pleasures (and I would say they are vices) we're encouraged to indulge are consumerism, materialism and greed. Everything else--from sex, to drugs...and now soda..is stigmatized, controlled by the state, and even criminalized.
The workplace, particularly, has been turned into a Panopticon-like institution, where you must check not only your legal rights, but your human identity at the door...
thanks, msexpat! appreciate your call-outs this a.m.!!!
Disconnect people from their bodies, souls and minds. "Nazification of America" phrase is coming up on the far left alternate media a lot!
Speaking of the workplace, I remember getting a little notice in one of my paycheck receipts long long ago that my 401k would be going "speculative". It wasn't a question. I remember thinking WTF
? Vast and mostly union-less America without working voices. "At will" workplaces, whereby you are gone and we don't have to explain ourselves.
I had to google panopticon ... wikipedia. how interesting!:
Our schools' culture is also panopticon.
The wholesomeness of the counter-culture of integrated and enlivened human beings is the enemy to an ever intensifying de-humanizing culture.
LIVE spelled backwards is EVIL. Bio-philic expansion vs. necrophilic contraction (I think I got those assertions from Scott Peck's People of the Lie!)
Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare. (Japanese proverb)
Be right back, have to google
Be right back, have to google "noblesse oblige". Okay, I think I get what you're saying now.
I must admit, I really don't want my taxes subsidizing child (or adult) obesity, at which point my taxes will then have to subsidize medical care for said obese people.
Three cheers for Bloomberg choosing to do the most obvious thing in the world.
Food stamps should be used for food. Nutritious food.
Terribly sorry...
That my post required you to stretch your vocabulary in a way that made you uncomfortable. I tend to assume that my fellow Correntians are literate, well read, and intellectually curious, and I write my posts accordingly.
One of the reasons I like
One of the reasons I like Corrente is that most of the community seems to understand that it's both morally wrong and politically stupid to talk down to people.
You may notice that so far in this thread I have taken issue with your ARGUMENTS and not YOU personally. Let the record show that you attacked ME before addressing my arguments. (A sure sign that you have no good counterarguments.)
I'm quite well-read, thank you. I don't speak French though. And if there are 100 people who make their first visit to Corrente today, I'd bet 99 of them don't either. It doesn't mean they're stupid. It doesn't mean they're illiterate.
What it will TEND to mean, though, is that they will be LESS likely to return to this website if they feel condescended to by people like you.
I've long believed that working class people on the left should be bringing working class people on the right over to OUR SIDE, by showing them respect, and listening to what they have to say, and presenting convincing arguments to them about who exactly it is that is screwing them.
How many working class righties do you think will be persuaded by your argument above: "Spend tax money to buy poor people sugary soda, Mike Bloomberg, you insensitive ass!"
It's so incredibly stupid. Not you. But the argument.
Au contraire, the personal attack came from your side
first. I found your snide remark about my use of "noblesse oblige" personally offensive.
I would never think of dumbing down my writing for my fellow Correntians, just as I wouldn't want them to dumb down their writing for me (and some of the economic posts do indeed send me straight to Google, but I don't make a big deal about it. I like to learn new stuff).
There's nothing elitist about having and using a wide-ranging vocabulary. Is literacy on your black list, along with soda?
it's subjective, but
Well, this all gets very subjective but personally I think that writing, especially the kind that's meant to be politically persuasive, should err on the side of accessibility as opposed to complexity.
Trying to win people over to your political viewpoint is a difficult thing to do. It is made more difficult when people have to look up stuff on google - stuff that wasn't even necessary to the point you were making. It was used more for the purpose of making yourself appear smart and "well-read".
In my experience, that sort of approach is about the LAST THING that will win over the types of working class folks that we lefties so desperately NEED to come to our side.
Take my word for it - An overwhelming majority of people who encounter your fancy french phases will NOT know what they mean. So if your purpose is to make yourself appear Oh So Smart, knock yourself out. If your purpose is to advance the politics you favor, I'd recommend cutting back on that.
"Fancy French phrases"
"Noblesse oblige" is English.
Once again, the elitist opts
Once again, the elitist opts to talk down to me rather than address the substance of my argument.
Google is too hard? GOOGLE?
When at no other time in the world are we able to spend less than ten seconds looking up a word or a phrase -- when we complain about the dumbing-down of media and curricula -- Google is too hard?
This is so close to concern trolling that it speaks for itself about what you think the working class has in terms of smarts -- and with the criticism of the "fancy french phrases", it's almost a parody.
As said earlier, the real issue is *Bloomberg's* elitism -- not his real concern for making NYC markets better nutritionally, but thanx for the diversionary tactics.
elitism
The only elitism happening is in this thread. Bloomberg's actions will HELP the poor.
As most people know, soft drinks are a major contributor to obesity in this country. That's why so many on the lefty CORRECTLY believe that we should tax the hell out of those types of beverages. Because taxing things reduces consumption of those things. The fact is: you tax soft drinks, you reduce obesity. And health care costs.
Not paying for soft drinks with food stamps is essentially the same thing as taxing the soft drinks, in that the price of the stuff increases (you pay for it out of your own wallet instead of the government's wallet).
I wish there were more "elitists" in this country like Bloomberg doing things which actually HELP the poor.
Yes, let's HELP the poor
By taking away their food. Then they'll die off and we won't have to worry about it anymore.
You are also way underinformed about obesity(like the fact that most people who are obese, have little control over it, and most dietary changes will DO NOTHING And that the NIH definition of obesity has changed, thus expanding the ranks of the "obese" into a number that sounds quite terrifying).
Too buy healthier food, means spending more money. Which means less money overall to complete a grocery budget for a household for a month. Which means they run out of food before they get more money. As of 2006, 11% of American households go hungry, because their subsidized money doesn't go far enough, and you want to restrict what little food that is high in calories and low in cost they can have?
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
If person A has issues with person B's style...
... then the best solution is for person A to step up and do the work to create posts using the style they consider useful, rather than to attempt to get person B to do the work that they would prefer not to do themselves.
Suggestions are always useful, of course, but if A says to B "I wish you'd start writing like this" that's not really a helpful suggestion; it's a proposed allocation of another person's time. The typical solution for that in our society would be for person A to write person B a check. Obviously, that's not going to happen here. "Be the change you seek" is perhaps the slogan that is most a propos in this instance.
NOTE On another note, I'm surprised that both "noblesse oblige" and the Panopticon seem to be new. It's a hideous measure of how the educational system has been robbing our children of their inheritance. But I'm sure that race to the top will fix everything!
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
So who defines "nutritious"?
That's the big problem with your end of the argument.
I'm a believer in good food, real food. I think most of us Correntians are. But I reject the notion that the state has the right to tell people what they may and may not eat, just because they are receiving public assistance.
Like I said, who decides what's healthy? Will food stamp users be denied soda purchases while being allowed to buy an equally nutritiously dubious food like, say, triple creme boutique organic dairy chevre? (Whoops! sorry, damn French again. I mean goat cheese)
That's really what's going on here. Food stamp users have to be stigmatized as calorie junkies, and their behavior "improved" by them that thinks they knows better.
"Soda Queens" are the new "Welfare Queens".
Who decides? In theory, we
Who decides? In theory, we do, through our elected representatives. I'm capable of distinguishing between the nutritional benefits of vegetables as opposed to soft drinks. I think most people are.
If it were up to me, I'd have a white-list of food-stamp worthy foods, as opposed to a blacklist of unacceptable foods. Fruit, vegetables on the white-list. Whole grain based breads and cereals. Peanut butter. Things like that.
I'm a big lefty, and I love paying taxes for great government services. However, I've got no interest in paying taxes which go to paying for crap. Like food that causes diabetes.
I don't think the poor should starve in this country. But taxpayers have no moral responsibility to give them any kind of food they want.
And what about other government subsidies??
I know plenty of scolding conservatives, who feel it is an affront to their personal pride, that we build nice housing projects in our city. They feel they shouldn't have to subsidize a nice spacious apartment for poor people, that has new carpets and appliances. They should only get the old shit apparently.
How is your moralizing, any different than those who are outraged that poor people use their welfare checks to make payments on nicer cars? Are poor people not alowed to have nice cars?
We have plenty of hospitals in this area. Guess how many take Medicare? Guess what condition those hospitals are in? Are poor people not allowed nice medical facilities? Ones with granite countertops in the bathrooms, like the ones my work just got done installing at the brand spanking new hospital that only accepts private insurance? While the poor people go to the hospitals that are overrun with criminals, addicts, homeless people, where some of the security guards have to walk around armed with guns to patrol the hospital.
These arguments are all logical extensions of the argument you gave above. If you don't agree with them, I hope you will see the fallacy you are operating under.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Not just conservatives
I know plenty of scolding conservatives, who feel it is an affront to their personal pride, that we build nice housing projects in our city. They feel they shouldn't have to subsidize a nice spacious apartment for poor people, that has new carpets and appliances. They should only get the old shit apparently.
How is your moralizing, any different than those who are outraged that poor people use their welfare checks to make payments on nicer cars? Are poor people not alowed to have nice cars?
--
Well, I don't think just "scolding conservatives" would be pissed if it were TRUE (which it isn't) that a sizable amount of people on welfare ALSO drove around in hot cars and lived in nice large apartments.
Welfare is for people in NEED. It's not to give people a bunch of luxuries that most people NOT on welfare can't even afford.
It wouldn't be an affront to my "personal pride". However, it would be an affront to my common sense. And most people's.
Paying for people's "nice cars" isn't the roll of taxpayers. Nor is it the roll of taxpayers to pay for ANY cars at all.
So now all poor people have to move to
Cities with excellent public transportation, since you insist they don't even need a car? Cuz really, how else do you expect them to get and keep jobs that will allow them off the subsidies?
Or, are they allowed cars, but only used ones, over 10 years old? Then the subsidies that would have gone to paying off that "hot" car can go into maintaining an old POS one instead, that'll save money!!
Do you also support sterilizing women who have too many babies on those subsidies, since you believe accepting government assistance gives other people to make your life choices for you? Or the men who fail to pay child support, thus forcing those women to accept those subsidies?
And I didn't say luxurious apartments, I said nice apartments. As in new, not the old falling down, rat infested slums they were living in(and yes, the same people who were apoplectic about that new construction, are the same ones who support Bloomberg in this, just so you know who you're allies are). Nice to know you think children deserve to be forced to play unsafe(and I mean in equipment, not in crime) areas, with no sidewalks, and live in moldy, drafty rooms with no proper ventilation and environmental controls, all because they were too stupid to be born to richer parents.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
I never said poor people
I never said poor people aren't allowed crappy cars. I said that if you're driving around in a BMW, it sounds like you make enough money that you shouldn't be receiving welfare.
Do you also support sterilizing women who have too many babies on those subsidies, since you believe accepting government assistance gives other people to make your life choices for you?
It depends. I wouldn't agree with forced sterilization, because I'm not a lunatic. But I think I could support government incentives which encourage it. For example, something along the lines of: "here's X amount of free money if you voluntarily have your tubes tied". For men and women. Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.
And I didn't say luxurious apartments, I said nice apartments.
Well, it's difficult to define nice. And it depends where you live. But if you live in Philly, and you have enough income to afford a nice 2 bedroom apartment for $2000/mo, then I think you clearly make too much money to be receiving government assistance.
You really don't know what "projects" mean do you?
Projects are housing that people who are poor, get to live in with minimal payment(see Section 8 ). Most people who agree with you and Bloomberg, seem to think that those people should also live in filth, squalor and depridation.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Section 8
if they're lucky poor people. Subsidies even for rat-infested apartments are getting pretty scarce.
On the main topic -- I agree, I'm really getting fed up with politicians taking pot shots at easy targets with sanctimonious justifications about forcing the poor to live "better" lives through controlling their food. The "I get to decide what you can eat [for pity's sake] because it's paid for through the paltry public assistance you get" is crap. Round up and outlaw all the other truly and actually criminal spending that is paid for through my taxes, like the Wall St. bailouts and banker-parasite fraud, then come talk to me about taking away a couple bottles of pop from the poor. Sheesh.
Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen
I don't want my taxes...
I'm so sick of that argument. It's no different than the retrofucks who insisted on the Hyde amendment, and now Stupak, cuz they don't wan't their taxes subsidizing abortion.
This is nothing more than oppression, dressed up in "progressive" Nanny state clothes.
If you don't want your taxes going towards something that's totally legal, you just don't like, get the fuck out of society, and don't let the door hit you, where the Lord and Lady split you!
We are supposed to be liberals people, you know that word derived from that other word liberty. That means allowing people to make choices, even if you don't agree with them.
To put restrictions on what people are allowed to buy, just b/c you happened to be unfortunate enough to be born into a class of folks they have less than a 5% chance of escaping from, is one of the WORST things I could think of doing to an already oppressed class(or have you missed all the discussion around here that demonstrates that the poor are oppresssed? Did you miss this graph?)
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
experiment
Let's try an experiment. I'm going to say something, and then I'm going to let your own words respond to me.
ME: I don't want my taxes subsidizing cigarettes
YOU: If you don't want your taxes going towards something that's totally legal, you just don't like, get the fuck out of society, and don't let the door hit you, where the Lord and Lady split you!
ME: Wow, you are one crazy lady.
Nice armchair diagnosis of my mental health
Now who's going for the personal attacks?
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Let me understand this. You
Let me understand this. You think that telling me to "get the fuck out of society, and don't let the door hit you" because you disagree with me is appropriate. But what I said wasn't?
If you DO think that, then I'm certain my diagnosis was correct.
by the way
By the way, I agree with you. "Liberals" should definitely be in favor of allowing people to make their own choices, even if we disagree with them.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HAVE TO AGREE TO HELP PAY FOR THOSE CHOICES!!
Are you REALLY too slow to GET THAT??
Again, you're diverting attention from the topic of this post.
I guess you're doing your job, making this about you instead of the soundness of your argument.
Your taxes pay for all kinds of crap you don't
necessarily agree with. So? Who the hell are you to decide? Who is Bloomberg? Soda fills the belly. Lots of people on foodstamps actually grow vegetables, but soda as a supplement can mean not starving. Further, lots of people may want an occassional soda. That's not subsidizing obesity. That's allowing people a little personal freedom even if they are unfortunate enough to have to be on foodstamps. Bloomberg is a big fan of treating people on public assistance as children, apparently you agree with that philosophy.
The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR
dumb
Your taxes pay for all kinds of crap you don't necessarily agree with. So? Who the hell are you to decide?
Um, that's about the dumbest "argument" I've ever heard. Obviously, I'm not King, so I don't get to "decide" anything. All I'm doing is stating what I oppose. (that's kind of what we do around here, right?)
Good. Then let me say it again. Yes, I oppose when my taxes pay for crap that I don't agree with. Like the wars. The bailouts. And using foodstamps to pay for food that has no nutritional value and helps cause diabetes.
Most people would look at what I just wrote as about as obvious as you can possibly get. But not corrente commenters. No, they're on their high horse about this one.
What a fascist I am!
OK, how bout this compromise then
We'll stop allowing food stamp recipients to purchase cereal, tomato sauce, any processed foods. Or anything listed here.
Because the number one contributor to our higher diabetes rates, is High Fructose Corn Syrup, which literally interferes with our bodies ability to process sugar, and produce insulin.
"But then what will they eat?" Some liberals like me would ask. But you won't have to worry about that, because you'll feel better knowing they won't be fat, or develop diabetes in their adulthood, assuming they live that long and don't die of starvation first. What little bit of food they can purchase will be "healthy".
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
LOL...it's not a dumb argument.
Applauding Bloomberg for disallowing poor people to buy the food of their choice because you disapprove, and then making the giant leap that doing so will necessarily bring down health care costs and obesity rates is not an especially intelligent argument. What you and Bloomberg are implying is the poor don't make healthy food choices because they we don't force them to. It's insulting and frankly elitist.
The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR
I don't support the war in Iraq
I pay a considerable amount in taxes. SO WHY DO I HAVE TO HELP PAY FOR THOSE CHOICES?
Are YOU really to slow to GET THAT??
For crying out loud. Your paltry contribution to the national economy doesn't give you the right to say how someone else's benefit should be spent.
None of us decide where our tax dollars go. (More's the pity -- if we could earmark where our taxes were to be allocated I think this would be a very interesting society.) If you're worried about where "your" tax dollars go, then work toward that earmarked allocation. Otherwise all the pontificating is showing is how mean-spirited you are.
stop playing dumb. please.
If you don't like that some of your tax money goes to fund awful wars, then you should be speaking up and telling that to your representatives, and trying to convince other citizens about the stupidity of that particular tax allocation.
Similarly, if you don't like that your tax money helps increase obesity by subsidizing the consumption of soft drinks (whether through corn subsidies or through the foodstamp program), then you should be speaking up and telling that to your representatives, and trying to convince other citizens about the stupidity of that particular tax allocation.
See how it works?
Taxpayers can't "decide" where our tax money goes. The best we can do is try to *influence* where it goes in ways that we prefer. And we SHOULD be doing that. Every day. If we are good citizens.
All I'm doing is expressing a view point. You, on the other hand, are telling me to just STFU
.
almost true
When you say this.
"All I'm doing is expressing a view point. You, on the other hand, are telling me to just STFU
."
Expressing a view point is one thing, "shouting" down others with repetition is something else entirely. Your opinion didn't irk me at all the first three times you stated it. After that? Well I may be "playing dumb" but you are removing any doubt. Whatever.
almost true
When you say this.
"All I'm doing is expressing a view point. You, on the other hand, are telling me to just STFU
."
Expressing a view point is one thing, "shouting" down others with repetition is something else entirely. Your opinion didn't irk me at all the first three times you stated it. After that? Well I may be "playing dumb" but you are removing any doubt. Whatever.
By the way, Bloomberg isn't
By the way, Bloomberg isn't "banning soda drinking from the most vulnerable citizens"
Those citizens can go to the store and purchase soda if they want to. Just not with FOOD STAMPS.
BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!
That's not going to work. Have you thought this through?
So, should Bloomberg start micro-managing food stamp baskets, the marketplace will compensate. If soda's not allowed, then Coca-Cola will sell concentrate and sparkling water. If not that, then powdered Coca-Cola, like Koolaid, until sugar starts being banned. Even if soda gets restricted, you don't think the soda manufacturers will start peddling something more nutritious from their multinational larder, then attach a coupon for free soda to it? Those multinationals are more powerful than Bloomberg, and when they feel threatened, that's when his career will end.
Even if he succeeds in restricting sugar, salt, fat from poor baskets, what will come in its place? Is he working to get better food in markets with high food stamp use? Does he even care about the carrot part of the behavior modification, or just the stick? Not stepping up to make the food distribution network healthier is only going to put the food stamp users on the side of multinationals, just as banning smoking in offices put smokers on the side of the tobacco industry. Without any equivalent positive incentives, aren't we asking food stamp users to sacrifice, when we're not? Is that any way to change behavior?
Agreed. Which is why, in
Agreed. Which is why, in another comment of mine, I said that if it were up to me, I would have a white-list of acceptable foods, rather than a blacklist of prohibited ones. It would make things a lot more easy to manage.
By the way, "Mikey" is a
By the way, "Mikey" is a mayor, not a Senator. He's not responsible for financial reform. He's responsible for the things that a NYC mayor is responsible for.
Bottom line is this: if Mike
Bottom line is this: if Mike gets his way, child obesity and health care costs will GO DOWN in NYC. If you had your way, they wouldn't. Glad he's the mayor and you're not.
A little too much Jolt cola this morning?
Please, in the interest of readability, one post that contained all of your points would have a lot more impact than a blitz of two liners.
Sorry, your post really
Sorry, your post really irritated me. And I had to keep coming back.
Well, then, consider us even!
n/t
Empty calories are still calories
Do you have any clue as to how many families on food stamps are still deprived of food after spending their allotment? Do you have any idea how hard it is to come up with enough calories to allow a child to grow as they are supposed to, on a Whole Foods diet?
Those sodas maybe 200 calories of bad shit, but its better than 0 calories, which is what they'll get from water. And kids need calories. You ever seen a kid try to focus on schoolwork when they are hungry? Sodas are one of the few ways poor people with restricted access to food, can ensure their kids get some of the stuff that they need.
And don't epidemic me no obesity. The problem in this country, is the same as its been for 20 years, and that's too much poison in the food supply. It ain't stupid parents pumping their kids full of soda(I started drinking soda at the age of 13 and lost weight, thank you very much), it ain't lazy kids who won't tear themselves away from the XBox, ITS THE POISON IN THE FOOD.
Any person who wants to do something about the obesity epidemic, but puts the onus on the consumer(and the poor consumer in this instance, how gallant of you!) to make better choices, instead of on the industry to give us better choices, is someone who is not serious about addressing the problem, and only looking to be a harmful scold.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
all strawmen
Do you have any clue as to how many families on food stamps are still deprived of food after spending their allotment? Do you have any idea how hard it is to come up with enough calories to allow a child to grow as they are supposed to, on a Whole Foods diet?
Is this really how you argue? Just set up one straw man after another. Very annoying. I didn't say whole foods. I said buy an apple instead of a coke. They should be able to find apples at their local grocery store.
You obviously have never been to the grocery store in the ghetto
Why don't you check your privilege at the door before you start expounding on the choices poor people should make.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
"They should be able to find apples..."
Sometimes language nuances speak louder than 10,000 words.
and
And sometimes people who act like they're on your side advocate policies that help make you and your children obese.
Oh, how they're hearts bleed! They just want you to have all the candy and coke you could ever want!
You also totally ignored the point of my argument
Even if they could find apples(and see I advocate policies that would give them access to apples, and all the other fruit the could want. Bloomberg doesn't, and so far neither have you. As a matter of fact, your ignorance on this issue is astounding), how many calories is that apple going to give a child(who has to have calories)? Now, how about that apple? Obesity might kill your kid, but starvation definitely will, and a lot faster. CPS also won't take away your kids for being too fat, but they will for being too thin, you can count on it.
These are people choosing the 2% less evil option, and it is killing them. You will get no argument from me on that, the problem is that I acknowledge that, while you still want to put the onus on the people with the fewest choices, to make better choices.
With friends and advocates like you, poor people really need more enemies.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond