Cunningham: "[P]eople are poor in America ... because they lack values, morals, and ethics"
Bill Cunningham asserted on his radio show that "people are poor in America ... not because they lack money," but "because they lack values, morals, and ethics." He also said that "unlike many countries in the world ... we have fat poor people. We don't have skinny poor people. Ours are fat and flatulent."
On the October 28 broadcast of his radio show, Bill Cunningham said to Steve Malanga, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and City Journal senior editor: "You know, people are poor in America, Steve, not because they lack money; they're poor because they lack values, morals, and ethics. And if government can't teach and instill that, we're wasting our time simply giving poor people money." Earlier in the show, Cunningham had stated that "unlike many countries in the world, Steve, we have fat poor people. We don't have skinny poor people. Ours are fat and flatulent."
Cunningham made similar remarks on the October 23 broadcast of his radio show. During an exchange with a caller, Cunningham asserted that "[t]he reason people are poor in America is not because they lack money, it's because poor people in America lack values, character, and the ability to work hard."
As Media Matters for America has documented, Cunningham stated on October 27, "Among the so-called noble poor in America ... [b]irth control is not used so illegitimate children can be brought into the world, so the mom can get more checks in the mail from the government."
Talkers Magazine lists Cunningham on its "Heavy Hundred" list of the "100 most important radio talk show hosts in America." Cunningham's weekend show, Live on Sunday Night, it's Bill Cunningham, is syndicated nationally by Premiere Radio Networks.
From the October 28 broadcast of Clear Channel's The Big Show with Bill Cunningham:
MALANGA: There was a certain mentality in the war on poverty, which essentially made the problem worse. With things like welfare -- we changed welfare in the 1960s, we made it permanent. We changed public housing in the 1960s. Public housing had been something people were in temporarily as they were trying to get a leg up and, you know, people who had fallen on hard times and they were then out of it.
We changed those things. We, as a result, created a dependency mentality in a lot of communities, and we made communities worse. And that's the thing that worries me the most, that we're gonna go back to a way of thinking that encourages more dependence and makes communities worse again.
CUNNINGHAM: Well, what community in America is better off with more Section 8 housing and more welfare and more food stamps? Because, unlike many countries in the world, Steve, we have fat poor people. We don't have skinny poor people. Ours are fat and flatulent. So what city in America's been helped by Section 8 housing -- more food stamps and welfare?
[...]
MALANGA: The problem is also with middle-class and upper-middle income parents, too, because in a lot of suburban school districts, they also believe that money is the answer, and you, you know, you want to start a fight in a suburban school district these days, suggest something like vouchers or charter schools as a -- as an alternative and you'll just, you know, you'll start a wicked fight because there's this notion, even among, you know, upper-middle and middle-income parents, that more money is always the answer when we know, for instance, from the example of charter schools in the 1990s, which spend less money per pupil and do a better job of educating, that money isn't the answer.
CUNNINGHAM: Steve Malanga -- the article is "Obama's counterproductive war on poverty." The war on poverty was declared in the 1960s. It was lost in the 1970s. The funding continued for poverty. You know, people are poor in America, Steve, not because they lack money; they're poor because they lack values, morals, and ethics. And if government can't teach and instill that, we're wasting our time simply giving poor people money.
From the October 23 broadcast of The Big Show with Bill Cunningham:
CALLER: This guy told me, one of our employees -- not of this company here but some other companies I've worked for -- they told me, they said they've got to have one day off a week. And I said, for what? I just got to have a rest. I said, well, we work five days out of the week. You got Saturday and Sunday, and you can go to church on Sunday to learn about God. But then you got all day Saturday to do what your honey-do list. Well, I've got to have a way -- a day during the week 'cause all my brothers are down at the liquor store. We've got to go down there and hang out.
CUNNINGHAM: Right, in other words, the work ethic, shall we say, is lacking. The reason people are poor in America is not because they lack money, it's because poor people in America lack values, character, and the ability to work hard. And it's got nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with color, and Buzz, things are about to fundamentally change in this country.
I tell you, when you take San Francisco values of Nancy Pelosi, with the Massachusetts values of Barney Frank and hook them up with a political hack from the Daley political machine in Chicago named Obama, this country's gonna take a hard turn to the left and none of the working men and women are gonna like it. Most of McCain's supporters don't have the time to go to a noon rally because we're working.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
This guy is even dumber than the Republican VP candidate.
"Why do low-income people tend to exhibit more diet-related health problems? Adam Drewnowski, professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington, posits a simple answer: people are gaining weight and getting sick because unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food -- thanks in large part to federal policies."
What a chump this guy is. I can't even believe my ears really. People are poor because of their morals and values? Work ethic, now that one I might get on board with for a very few people, but overall, no. Not even close. I love the sound byte he puts in there about McCain supporters don't have time to attend rallies in the afternoon because they're working. Has he not been paying attention? Who has been going to all of those McCain Palin rallies and campaign events in the middle of the day? Obama supporters? I remember seeing a video a short while ago with McCain supporters trying to heckle protesters with cries of "Get a job!" while they're not at work either. Does anyone even realize what a bunch of morons that they sound like? Seriously? Does the word irony even register with this nut bags?
Now, I'm a self avowed left wing liberal nut. I freely admit it. I also have happened to have a job every year since I was 11 (paper route until 15, then McDonald's, then a local ski resort, then work study at college in the machine shop, more with the ski resort, then engineering jobs in the automotive industry, and the ski resort at the same time), and have never not been gainfully employed since I finished college. I'd say that I'm pretty hard working. My Dad, who is a lifelong democrat worked in a paper mill for 44 years. He was pretty hard working.
I'm not sure who this hack is talking about in the democratic party who isn't hard working, but maybe he should take a look at a quick comparison of George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. A tale of 2 presidencies we might say. On the one hand, we have W, the man who has been President who has taken MORE vacation days than anyone before him, even Reagan who held the record until W came along, and Ronny is closely followed by George HW Bush. Now, have a look at Clinton, who is and was a severe workaholic, who would put in 16, 18, 20 hour days at the office, and come back from more, hardly ever took a vacation day during his time in office (of course he took some, but it pales in comparison to the 3 republicans around him).
Now Cunningham. Who is the hard worker and who isn't?
Now Cunningham. Who is the hard worker and who isn't?
And how hard do you have to work to sit on your a$$ behind a microphone and spew hate, Bill????
Well, putting together a quality radio show does take time, effort, research, and good writing skills. So indeed, we can assume that Cunningham doesn't work hard at all.
Damn, judging from the last couple weeks of MMFA, this Cunningham guy must weigh 600 pounds and be destitute!
Corn syrup and trans fats are some of the worst offenders. And I notice somebody mentioned pestcides below. Also hormones and antibiotics have screwed with our systems. Poor people buy food that's cheap and cheap food is loaded with crap that makes you fat and unhealthy.
And besides all that, this eejit is one of those Calvinist type bastards that think only moral people attain or keep wealth. I think Jesus had something to say about rich people. What was that again? Hmmmn. I bet Cunningham doesn't have the foggiest. What a creep.
You're gonna love this then. Seems equality is a european value, not an american value...
Dennis Prager: Equality ‘Is A European Value, Not An American Value’»
Right-wing radio host Dennis Prager spoke before an audience of 3,000 at Minneapolis’ Orchestra Hall, during which he attacked the “left” for constructing “a grand edifice of lies about America.” One of those lies, according to Prager, is that “equality” is an American value:
At least Prager is being honest about the true conservative philosophy. They never have believed in equality. They've only pretended they did. The founders however, did believe in equality. So, he's wrong in his facts.
Snoopy, in case you don't listen to the wingnuts enough to translate this , let me help;
This is based on a catchphrase that rich Republicans tell their suckers, that "The Left" wants equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. The idea is that all men are created equal, and if your boss makes 300 times what you make, you're flawed. Your boss just worked harder, or is smarter.
They're able to convince somebody making 40k a year that equality means they'll make 20k, or whatever their gardener makes, despite the efforts of their boss (who makes 10 or 100 times that) to pull them up.
I know it sems far-fetched, but it works on all of those people at the McCain rallies booing tax cuts for themselves.
Hey!!! Demanding that the American worker receive some sort of compensation for productivity increases is just more of that liberal class warfare!!! What are you, some kind of pinko socialist. The workers should get down on their knees and thank the mighty lord that the wealthy give them the wonderful gift of a job.
Normally I'd feel foolish for pointing out this is sarcasm, but these days it's so hard to tell when you hear what the "serious conservative pundits" are preaching.
People say that it's "class warfare". I answer back, "OK. Well, who fired the first shot?"
People say that it's "class warfare". I answer back, "OK. Well, who fired the first shot?"
Those first "class warfare" shots were fired during the Reagan Administration. They were an offshoot of his "trickle-down" voodoo economics.
You forgot gay.
Workerth of the wirled, unite, in my bedroom!
Join us!
Proper response: Why....are you falling apart?
We do have a lot of fat poor people. He is right about this.
we also have a lot of fat rich people, and fat middle class people. Why didn't he bring that up?
Because he is an idiot. Rich people get fat because they are eating WAY too much good food. Poor people get fat because they have to eat the subsistent crap sold in the aisles of grocery stores, like Coke, Doritos, and other super-carbohydrated-crap with no nutritional value. We live in a time where DingDongs cost less than apples, oranges, grapes etc.
Based upon the testimonial of a caller, Cunningham picks it up shapes it into a national epidemic using tired platitudes and generalizations that exist only in his mind.
No reference, no statistics, no facts, no figures. This man is a certifiable idiot with a microphone.
Bill the idiot: "unlike many countries in the world, Steve, we have fat poor people. We don't have skinny poor people. Ours are fat and flatulent."
Well, that pretty much figures, doesn't it, Mr. Idiot?
Many countries are not saturated with fast-food chains offering super-sized value meals.
Many countires don't have a food-industry lobby run by Republican cronies who fight every effort to disclose nutritional and ingredient information on the food they offer that is genetically altered, processed beyond recognition, riddled with fat, and packed full of chemicals designed to get us hooked.
Many countries have poor people who grow their own food and do not have highly-processed, nutritionally-devoid food agressively marketed to them on a constant basis.
Also, food that is inherently not good for you in the US, is a lot cheaper than say, organic fruits and vegetables.
Or even pesticide laced, grown in South America and picked by slave labour fruits and vegetables.
Now I do not accept Cunningham's offensive slaps at poor people for not having values, morals or ethics. It's ridiculous to think that one's income level has anything to do with their character, Cunningham is a buffoon for spouting such nonsense.
However, do many of you realize that the fast food industry you so hap-hazardly swipe at also employs many people who are not basking in monetary rewards? And to mandate that they disclose nutritional information on a greasy french fry so people will know it's full of fat is not only ridiculous, but would drive up the cost of those greasy, fat filled fries - making those who choose to buy them of their own free will be forced to pay more.
More liberal thoughtless of unintended consequences.
Do you really believe that posting nutritional information on french fries is going to drive up the cost of said same french fry? I doubt it. How does doing the nutritional breakdown and hanging it on the wall increase price? Seriously? Take into account that all of the major fast food places are doing this already, and their food is still cheap.
Americans, as a whole LOVE fast food. It's not going to go away anytime soon, and in fact, appears to be one of the things that is most recession or economic downturn proof. Why? Again, because it's cheap. I mean, you could take a family of 4 out to eat at say McDonald's and still get out of there for less then 20 bucks I would bet.
The point is it is not the fast food industry's fault that people are fat, poor or rich. It's the people who eat the food that are responsible. Nor is it the Republican lobbyists for those fast food chains' fault. Do you think posting nutritional information about the fat in french fries is going to deter someone from eating them? No. People know fries are fattening yet choose to eat them anyway, it is their choice.
It is, but maybe it isn't. Go back to my original comment about fast food, and food that is inherently bad for you, being cheaper, and hence why we do have an epidemic in this country of both poor people, and many others, who are obese. If you have $3, are you going to go and get a healthy salad at say, a grocery store (which you won't have enough money for), or are you going to go to McD's, and get 3 things off of the dollar menu and go away full?
Posting nutritional information is beneficial, because you get to see exactly WHAT you're eating, and how much of it you're eating. I'd be willing to bet, that there are reasonably intelligent people on this board, and elsewhere that don't know the caloric content of a small fry at McDonald's. I'm sure that they know hey, it's fried, how good for me is it going to be? But I'd bet that most would be surprised about what else is in there aside from fat. Without looking, take a stab at it, and let me know your guess.
Capitalism works best when there is "perfect information". In other words, both supplier and demander (if there is such a word) have all the pertinent information about the transaction before a purchase is made. Providing nutritional information allows the customer to have more perfect information about their food transaction and thus is good capitalism. By not wanting to supply the information, the supplier wants to obscure information from the buyer in order to give them an advantage. This is anti-capitalism.
And nowhere in there do you even assume that many people are just going for the cheapest source of food out there? This is just another one of those issues that have several contributing factors, and rather than address them all a right wing maggot chooses the one that is most likely to incite class warfare.
No, I don't buy the fact the reason anyone is fat is because the only food they can afford is the fattening food, so it is out of their hands, that is absurd.
In case this escapes many of you, the main reason people gain weight and are fat is due to lack of exercise. Now please, don't tell me that is because they can't afford to join a gym. Exercise, walking, running, or a host of other aerobics activities are for anyone who chooses to do so, regardless of the economic status.
So to blame obesity on food alone is ridiculous.
I hope you noted I said "several contributing factors" because I got the impression you only read the first sentance.
Answer this: How does hiding the nutritional information of fast food HELP people control their weight?
There are people who think McDonald's salads are health food when they are laden with fat and calories.
Tommy doesn't believe in uninformed people. He doesn't think they exist. I wonder what world Tommy actually lives in. My guess is Willy Wonka's world is more in concordance with reality.
I'm quite sure Monopoly Megamillions has absolutely nothing to do with drawing in customers either. Just the chance of winning a million dollars for eating trans fat saturated burgers and fries wouldn't sway anyone, right?
Not getting enough exercise is a vast oversimplification. A former neighbor more than doubled her weight when she was bed-ridden and recovering from a broken neck (happily her spinal cord wasn't damaged). I've put on weight even when bicycling 200+ miles per week. Divorces are positively correlated with weight gain. The energy balance concept is simple, but the number of factors that contribute to the intake (stress, health, diet, and all the factors that affect those) and the consumption (metabolic rate, exercise, and the factors that affect those) is large.
Even getting exercise is not a simple matter. Assuming someone is motivated to exercise, they still need access to safe venues, appropriate equipment, and time. Safe venues include pedestrian friendly environments for runners and walkers. Appropriate equipment can be relatively inexpensive (shorts and shoes for running, for instance), but that doesn't mean they're always affordable. Decent running shoes start above $100 per pair, and skimping on good shoes will lead to chronic injuries and the associated medical costs. Working multiple low wage jobs doesn't leave much time for exercising.
Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a place where exercise is safe and easy, with the budget for the equipment, and the time to enjoy the activitiy. Blaming obesity on lack of exercise alone is as ridiculous as blaming obesity on food alone.
As a matter of fact, study after study disputes the notion that the poor are all the more so because of a lack of morals, decency or values; on the contrary, such factors as the following are more than likely to blame:
Just do a Google.
My point is I don't look down on anyone because of their economic situation, rich or poor. I evalute them based on their character, not their net worth. So Cunningham is just being inflammatory in his blanket idiotic assertions.
However, I also don't patronize people of lesser means, like foghornleghorn apparently does, by saying they might choose healthier foods if they knew fries were fattening, or some such nonsense that he said. Just because one is poor, doesn't mean they are clueless.
They're not clueless but their options are limited. The artificially low price of corn and beef is one of the reasons for obesity among America's poor.
Affordable food is high in fat and sugars. I don't know what the alternative is, but that's what the experts say.
Everyone may know fries are fattening. However, how many McDonald's customers know that their Chicken McNuggets have more calories than their Big Mac? What about salads? How many of them realize that what they think is health food is actually laden with fattening and colorie-dense add-ons?
Can't believe I missed this gem yesterday...
Hey dummy - it's not "some nonsense like that". It's not that people don't know fries are fattening, but rather HOW fattening they are.
You are clueless and intellectually dishonest and should be the last person to throw around the "patronize" allegation. on this site. Just because I call you on your biases is no reason to slander me. Got it?
What I "got" is that you think poor people are too stupid to know that fries are greasy, full of fat, high in calories, and probably not very healthy. Your offensive patronization is clear, I stand by what I said.
More intellectual dishonesty. How about this - labeling may make people choose healthier foods, therefore decreasing the demand for greasy french fries and lowering their cost. As an added benefit, these people may actually become healthier and therefore have lower health care costs.
Your concern for those "not basking in monetary rewards" is appreciated, but unfortunately, misguided in this case.
So you think poor people are stupid and don't know fries are fattening because they are not labeled? Wow. You make Cunningham look reasonable.
Your faith in the intelligence of the general populace is overstated. Did you ever think that people (all, not just poor) may know that french fries are "bad" for you, but maybe not to what extent they are until its actually in front of their face in black and white print so they can make decisions based on their overall diet?
Now, tell us again how labeling raises prices? I need a good story before my afternoon siesta.
Sorry, but if someone doesn't know that fries are fattening, I have little faith that reading some nutritional information confirming that will be of much use.
They should still have the information. After all, the best choice is made when all information is out on the table.
So you think poor people are stupid and don't know fries are fattening because they are not labeled? Wow. You make Cunningham look reasonable.
Tommy, I think their were a lot of folks who didn't realize that eating a Big Mack and large fries equaled 1110 calories and 59% grams of fat. That was part of the reason for labels on fast food, make the public aware.
It's also very easy to tell poor people that they need to exercise, however you seem to have forgotten that poor people live in poor neighborhoods which usually aren't the safest places to take a walk or run when you get home from work.
Come on Pearl, not you too. So, poor people aren't responsible for being fat because that's all they can afford? And poor people can't exercise because they can't go outside in their neighborhoods?
I am sorry Pearl, I respect your opinion, but I can't go there with you on this.
Pearl doesn't realize that you are an anti-capitalist that believes people shouldn't have complete information about the products they consume.
Tommy, I'm not saying some folks simply eat, get fat, know their fat and keep eating.
But you can't deny the issues that some poor folks have. They don't have access to daily fresh vegetables and fresh fish. Some poor neighborhoods are dangerous for walking and running. That's not an excuse, it's a fact.
Pearlene, yes they do have access to fresh food and veggies. Our are you saying they have never heard of a grocery store? If the can get to fast food they can get to a grocery store. YOu can get all the excersie you need in a house as well, you do not need to go outside.
Pearl,
People are overweight because they eat too much, or exercise too little, unless they have a medical condition. But by and large it is of their own doing. To say they can only afford high fat foods, or have no ability to exercise is just flat out silly. And it is not the government's job to tell them what is common sense, that french fries and cheeseburgers are fattening. This whole blame somebody else for your own choices culture we live in is ridiculous. I don't buy it, sorry.
This whole blame somebody else for your own choices culture we live in is ridiculous
What's ridiculous is your failure to grasp the concept of CORPORATE responsibility. When you find a dead mouse in your McSalad I bet you'll leave your personal responsibility mantra at the door (after all, you should have known that some fast food eateries have vermin problems) and find your nearest lawyer.
For you to equate dead rodents in salads to telling people that eating french fries are fattening just illustrates the weakness of your argument. But it's your typical retort, always take the example to some ridiculous extreme because you can't argue it on it's own merits, it's done here all the time (i.e, cutting taxes means we want no police or fire protection).
So your silly response was expected, thank you.
"...always take the example to some ridiculous extreme because you can't argue it on it's own merits..."
"Why stop there? Why not have a label on those plastic knives and forks telling people to be careful and use them only according to their intended purpose, otherwise you may cut or stab yourself."
Not a ridiculous extreme at all based on the idiotic arguments you put forth in this thread, in fact it's a natural progression for your position. But of course you wouldn't see it because to you the government absolutely should hold our hands and tell us greasy french fries are full of fat. It is their responsibility.
Then it's a natural progression to say that if you don't want restaurants held accountable for their nutritional content, you don't want them held accountable for blatant health violations.
If restaurants are unwilling to tell their patrons what's in their food, then they should be forced to provide that information. Consumers have rights. Tell me you believe otherwise, please.
Consumers also have brains, are you going to sit there and tell me they might know that fries might be fattening but it's the government's job to tell them just how fattening they are, in detail and with specifics?
That is absurd.
You have no argument.
If they have some reason to avoid telling their patrons on their own, then obviously there's a reason they don't want people to know the specifics. People have a right to know, whether you think they should just get by on a vague recognition of "fattening" or not. Until you come up with some solid reason for restaurants to keep this information private, then the rights of the consumer trump your emotional argument on behalf of the poor fast-food chains. They are so tragically persecuted, really. My heart simply bleeds for them.
I love the assertion of "absurd" from the same person who thinks that a minor printing bill is going to drive a restaurant chain to fire employees and that people on diets have no need for specific nutritional information. That sure carries a lot of weight.
You always shift the arguement when you're losing it. I never said the restaurants should keep anything private. This is about the government mandating the restaurants specify the fat content of a damn french fry, when anybody in their right mind knows full well they are fattening. As I said, your argument on ridiculous and excessive government involvement in private businesses goes to the absurd. Sensible regulation, such as rats in salads, is expected for the public health. But to demand fat grams for a greasy fried food is ridiculous.
Grow up and take responsibility for your own choices, or stay away from those persecuted poor fast food chains, nobody is forcing you to eat there.
"Fattening" is not nutritional information. It's a question of degree, not absolutes. If they don't provide the specifics, then they're keeping them private. Why should they be allowed to do that?
Let me answer it for you, based on your replies here so far:there is no reason they should be allowed to do that. Therefore, it's also "sensible regulation". Remember that this applies to all foods that are served, so a salad that is not as healthy as you would think would also be a matter of "public health". Or is your argument now that they should provide specific information for some items and simply list "fattening", "salty" "high in carbs" for the others?
I don't care if they provide the specifics, go right ahead. I just don't want the government wasting time and resources mandating that McDonalds fully disclose the number of fat grams in a greasy french fry, when it's common sense. And please explain to me how not disclosing these fat grams is injurious to "public health", that is lunacy. Mandating basic standards for cleanliness and appropriate health concerns is one thing, going to the measures you suggest is ridiculous, and you know it.
We disagree.
How many grams of fat are in a french fry, off the top of your head? How about any food item from any fast-food chain? Is one chain healthier than another? You have no clue without the specifics.
If you don't know how fattening something is, then you're ingesting something that may be much worse for you than you imagine. That is bad for your health, and consumers have a right to know that.
Again, if you can't provide a reason it shouldn't be done, then the actions are reasonable. Your assertions otherwise are meaningless.
So I am supposed to tell you why the government shouldn't mandate something? That is your typical knee-jerk liberal reaction when it comes to spending government's money and resources, according to you it should just automatically be done unless you are proved otherwise. No, how about you telling me why it's necessary, that is the way it works. If you want some new, senseless government bureacratic mandate then it is incumbent upon you to validate it's worthiness, I have no obligation to tell you why it shouldn't be done, the responsibility lies with you.
And you haven't made your case except to say it's fattening, but we as consumers should expect the government to give us more specifics. That is laughable.
But you're a liberal, and you depend on government to hold your hand all day long, through this nasty world, and now it's those fast food chains that are taking advantage of you because you don't know how much fat is in a french fry. Sorry Skippy, don't eat them and you won't have to worry. As I said, it's time to grow up.
I did tell you why it was necessary, because consumers have rights. You never disputed that. Since there's no reason to allow businesses to hide this information, it should be available.
I look forward to seeing your diet book:exercise, don't eat anything bad (you know what that is already!), never treat or reward yourself. That will be a best-seller, right? If you think about what you just read, maybe the light will dawn for you just a little bit.
Yes, we all have rights. And I have the right to speak out when I see whiny liberals advocating silly government involvement in coddling consumers and making sure they know that fast food french fries soaking in greasy wrappers are full of fat.
"(you know what that is already!)"......let me help you out here because the government is busy at the moment > Oily, greasy fried foods might make you fat! There, does that help you out since you scoffed at my knowing it already, meaning you didn't. Sorry, it's about time you break from posting nonsense on this website and pick up a calorie counting paperback from your local bookstore, you'll find all sorts of neat things in there, you might even find out you can do it on your own, and don't need the government's help. Good Luck!
So you admit that consumers have rights, you still can't tell me why this shouldn't be available to consumers, so your argument is what specifically? And how is "whiny" a criticism when you admitted today that you're a whiner?
Of course I know there's fat in fried foods. What you're failing to grasp is that people don't just quit eating certain types of foods. You don't just eat lettuce three meals a day and exercise after eating fast food nine times a week. You'd go nuts, and people who try that end up quitting it altogether. So what people do is to reward themselves with stuff that's bad for them, on an occasional basis. Your absolutist "don't eat it if it's bad for you" is not even remotely grounded in reality. So people should be able to know this information, to be able to make decisions.
Take a deep breath and bask in your newfound knowledge of basic human behavior.
You just don't get it, do you? The government is not Mommy. The government has no business, nor any role, in telling you how many fat grams there are in french fries so you can tailor your cravings accordingly and not get fat, or to try and regulate your behavior so you can reward yourself.
Wow.....
If people have a right to something, then they have a right to it. Therefore, it's not an option. Therefore, if a business refuses, obviously the government has a right to enforce it.
If the government can't enforce it, then a fast-food chain has an option in the matter.
So either you have to say that consumers don't have rights, or you have to tell me how a right is reliant on someone else's choice. Which is it?
Brab - this is Tommy's most inane argument ever - that people don't have a right to know what's in the food that they eat. I think this one deserves the MMFA Derailment Award for October. And Tommy, lying about another poster (me) does nothing except make YOU look petty.
Quite possibly, although the competition for his most inane argument is fierce. And sometime tomorrow he'll probably criticize someone for making an emotional argument, when all he's doing here is whining about how liberals think government is "mommy".
On a diet? Don't eat anything bad! You don't need to know any of those silly numbers! I'm still cracking up over it, honestly.
The way you two have to lie only reveals how pathetically asinine your argument is. Show me where I said we as consumers have no right to know what we eat? What I said, specifically, is that we don't need the government mandating calorie and fat grams for what any child already knows, that greasy french fries are high in calories and high in fat. And yes, the Mommy government fits perfectly for two whiny liberals who can't even take resonsibility for knowing what any child knows.
I repeat, grow up.
Oh, so people have a right to know that something is vaguely fattening, but not the right to know exactly how fattening. So businesses should be required to provide vague descriptions, since consumers have the right to know that, right? This must be your position that I'm supposedly lying about.
Again, we all know that french fries are fattening. The point is that specifics make a difference. You're not answering how people are supposed to make informed decisions between different establishments without any specifics.
Considering this is the third day arguing this, and you will never end it on your own, I will. We have very different philosophies on the role of government.
You depend on it to hold your hand and be your Mommy, you blame it for choices you are more than capable of making, you aren't able to take responsibility for pushing fattening fries away from the table but instead you want to blame government for not giving you specifics on just how fattening they are. What about alcohol? Should the government tell you how many drinks make you drunk otherwise it isn't your fault because you weren't given the specifics on how much "proof" is too much?
I, on the other hand, take full responsibility for the choices I make. I don't need, nor do I depend on specifics to guide me away from greasy fries. I use my brain and common sense to know their effects. I do need Mommy to do that for me.
Obviously we will never agree, and that is fine by me.
I'm familiar with your emotional argument. Hopefully after you posted this it struck you that you can feel the effects of alcohol much more easily than you can feel the effects of fat. Your body tells you when you've had to much to drink immediately.
You're not answering any questions. People have rights, but at the same time government can't enforce them. It's purely optional for businesses to abide by consumers' rights or not, apparently.
I'd also like for you to point out where I've said that people aren't responsible. Either this is a strawman or you're thinking of someone else. What I'm saying is that there are reasons that people should be told exactly what's in their food, all of it, not just french fries. They have rights and reasons to know. The only thing you've provided to show why this shouldn't happen is a fantasy that a minor cost will drive big businesses to lay off workers.
If people have rights to something, then government has an obligation to enforce that. You have yet to show me how a disagreement with that is even possible.
"Hopefully after you posted this it struck you that you can feel the effects of alcohol much more easily than you can feel the effects of fat. Your body tells you when you've had to much to drink immediately"
O H. M Y. G O D. !!!!!!!!!
"Should the government tell you how many drinks make you drunk otherwise it isn't your fault because you weren't given the specifics on how much "proof" is too much?"
Excuse me for answering your question. Obviously you're incapable of answering any yourself.
Tommy, I'm under the impression that McDonald's has been posting nutritional information for several years now. Many other fast food restaurants already do the same. I doubt that listing nutritional info will cause price increases for any chain.
I don't think they post them openly; you have to ask at the counter to see the list. I don't think many people do that--on the other hand, I don't know where they would be posted and easily readable at a fast food joint.
When the policy was announced at McDonald's years ago, a nutritional poster was prominently displayed near the counter. I haven't looked for it in a few years. I'm willing to bet that it's not so prominent now.
In the McDonald's across the street from my job, they post the nutritional poster prominently near the register, on the adjacent wall, with a huge frame around it - almost like they're showing it off.
This thread isn't about nutritional information (Tommy, nice try at a derail), but about the dispicable blanket statements made by a hateful man. It has nothing to do with the nutritional information posted at McDonald's.
I'm not willing to even go down the path that fast food is the problem. The problem is with the right-wing's economic policies aimed at dismantling the middle class. People are poor for myriad reasons, the least of which being morality and ethics. Sheesh.
LOS ANGELES, Sept. 30 -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill Tuesday requiring chain restaurants to put calorie counts on their menus and indoor menu boards, making California the first state to enact such a law in the battle against America's expanding waistline.
The law requires chains with 20 or more locations -- more than 17,000 restaurants statewide -- to post the information by 2011. Starting in July, restaurants and drive-throughs will have to offer menus that provide information on the calories, saturated fat, carbohydrates and sodium in each item.
I am aware of the new law, and it's absolutey one of the most ridiculous laws this state has, and there are plenty.
Time will tell if it causes the mass unemployment dooms day that you're sure will follow.
Why stop there? Why not have a label on those plastic knives and forks telling people to be careful and use them only according to their intended purpose, otherwise you may cut or stab yourself.
It's a silly analogy, and not an apt one.
I guess you don't like Adam Smith who talked about the importance of "perfect information" in capitalism.
You contradict yourself in your very own post. Sorry, "perfect information" also includes plastic forks and knives, does it not? And why not? They should get some respect, shouldn't they?
Nutritional information is a matter of degree. You can know that food contains fat but still want to know how much. The supposed risk of cutting yourself with plastic knives isn't similar to that.
So, get off your lazy a$$ after you eat a biggie order of fries and exercise if you still want to know much fat you just ate. Stop blaming the lack of nutritional information on that greasy wrapper, it's ridiculous.
How does exercising tell me how much fat I just ate? You're just throwing out random phrases at this point.
It's reminiscent of Tourette's Syndrome. Does that extend to typing?
You are the one who said "if you still want to know much fat you just ate", meaning you must be concerned about it or why would you care? So if you care, go exercise. It wasn't that hard to follow.
You are diving head-first into stupidity. If I'm dieting, I need to know specifics. I would be exercising anyway, since the idea is to lose weight I need to know exactly how much fat and calories I'm taking in.
"How much" means specific numbers. Exercising doesn't tell me that.
Here's the problem. I don't think Tommy is nearly as stupid as he seems to be at times. I think he's so adamant on not relinquishing a point that his brain spits out nonsense. It kind of reminds me of McCain's debate performances. He couldn't just let go when doing so was prudent. My case in point, Obama's deft baiting of McCain to bring up Ayers in the 3rd debate. McCain couldn't help himself.
Maybe I'm wrong and Tommy is that dumb, but I hope not.
"If I'm dieting, I need to know specifics"
You did not just say that? Well, newsflash Sport, if you're dieting best stay away from french fries, so the specifics you crave don't mean much, now do they?
My lord, you're slipping, take that break I advised you to do awhile back.
Tommy doesn't understand how a diet works, which means one of three things:
Personally, I think it's a tossup between 3 and 4.
You've just gone into the absurdly comical category I have for certain posters around here, actually you're alone there for now.....you are hysterical.
Okay. I'm putting my money on #3.
It depends on what I would be allowed. On Weight Watchers, for instance, you're allowed a number of bonus points every week. If I have 35 points, and french fries take up 5 of them, I might do that. If they take up 15, I won't. This is dependent on the specifics of the nutritional information.
So yes, specifics still mean quite a bit. More so on a diet than off of one, easily.
So your argument is because you choose a diet that is dependent on points, that the government should mandate to businesses that they should cater to your weight losing program and make that business disclose those points just so you can have the information? Forget about Weight Watchers giving you the information and the specifics you require to make you want to join their program. The government needs to step in and get involved. Whew....
You have gone off the rails, I can't argue with someone who puts out such lunacy, sorry.
Calories are converted to points by the dieter, dimwit. He was using it as an example.
Consumers deserve information about what they consume, period. Only anti-capitalists would argue that people should make decisions without complete information.
Is there any credible weight-loss program that doesn't rely on dietary specifics?
Yes, as consumers people should have the information, and if it's necessary to mandate that, so be it. There's simply no reason not to do that.
Tommy's response to the most reasonable argument possible "You have gone off the rails...". It's his MO. It has been for the three long years he's been doing his bit on this site.
Exercise doesn't tell you the content of the meal you just ate. You don't make any sense.
If you're worried or misinformed about the meal you just ate, then go exercise, burn those calories you are so uninformed about.
That makes no sense. You obviously are adding nutrition to the list of subjects you do not understand. Even my young children understand caolries in/calories out.
It's a good law. Consumers should have as much information as possible.
My boss just got back from an exotic and elitist vacation in Hawaii, and he brought me a box of those chocolate-covered macadamia nuts. Three of them gave me 30% of my daily fat. I hate those stoopid labels!
Well, at least you know before you put it into your mouth.
When the government required that nutritional information had to be printed on most food packaging back in the early nineties, jobs were created. Advertisers, manufacturers, packaging plants and printers all hired people.
So that's where all those teenage french fry cooks went to work when they got laid off. I was wondering.
So we should turn a blind eye to the world's highest obesity rate because doing something about it is going to rob the junk food industry of its profits?
We should shield the public against information about the food we eat because it's in our best interest to keep the junk food industry wealthy, obesity rates high, and the resulting health care costs in a constant skyrocket?
More conservative intended consequences.
Tell that to those who work for those junk food profiteers when they get laid off because the government mandated they stop shielding the public against information about just how fattening those fries are.
Slash their profits, regulate the hell out of them, and bury your head in the sand because as a result they cut jobs.
The law of liberal unintended consequences when it comes to punishing job creators.
Now I know why cigarettes are still legal and still killing people...People would lose their jobs.
Oh my God. Fast food chains are going to lay off people because of the minor cost of dietary analysis and printing?
You do know that most places have stuff besides french fries. McDonald's, for instance, has salads. Now, if I'm dieting, I might eat there if their food is within the specified calories/fat range I require. I might even treat myself to some french fries once a week if allowable. If I don't know that information, I'm not going anywhere near the place.
Surely there are additional profits that balance out these marginal costs.
It's this type of thing that has always hung up Tommy and lessened his credibility around here. He picks peculiar stands to be obstinante about. You know he's up to mischief when he pretends to join in the outrage of the piece but then follows up with the inevitable "But,..." or "However,...".
Do you honestly think I am worried about my credibility on a liberal website populated by liberals who look to the government for guidance and hand-holding in getting through their every day, including their lunch and dinner choices? Ahh, No. In this case, demanding that the government tell you that greasy french fries are fattening.
You obviously do care, because you have to litigate every slight against you until people are tired of posting responses to your hair-splitting.
You are an anti-capitalist. Consumers should have all information available which, according to Adam Smith, provides the best outcome in a transaction.
Yes, because I think the people are smart enough to figure out that eating greasy fried food out of a oil-stained paper wrapper might be cause for a little fat in their diet, I am now an anti-capitalist. You hit it with that one.
You are. Read and be enlightened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information
I think the more info the better on what were eating too, but in my opinion the idea of perfect information is a flawed economic construct ultimately. If your interested in the economics of it check out ---George Soros's 2008 "The New Paradigm for Financial Markets". He tells how the economists have gotten things wrong with basic theories like this one and how that has contributed greatly to decisions negatively affecting the economy today, especially as regards to bubbles.
The way I interpret what he says basically is that the idea of perfect information is greatly limited possibility by the fact that we ourselves are a part of the world we seek to understand. Actually his ideas apply to non-economic aspects of social life as well. In general the observer can't really be very confident of his understanding of aspects of reality which include the observer.
In ecomonics, "perfect information" is truly unreachable. However, does it not make sense for the consumer to have "more perfect information". Purposefully obscuring objective information that might modify choice can only lead to a lesser and not better economic outcome.
By the way, I'm not an economist. However, I do know that capitalism is enhanced by more information rather than less. It's strange for a rightie like Tommy to argue otherwise.
because I think the people are smart enough to figure out that eating greasy fried food out of a oil-stained paper wrapper might be cause for a little fat in their diet
I hope you read this Tommy - Years ago I worked at a chain Italian restaurant. They had a dish there that most everyone (including me) really liked. Then a regional manager mentioned to me in passing that this plate of food had 150 grams of fat. Do you know how much that is? Now, if I had know that, then maybe, just maybe I wouldn't have eaten that as much as I did. Do you see how INFORMATION may affect your spending and/or eating habits based on this example?
Does this compute or will you still continue to argue until everyone gives up?
It isn't the government's job to be your caretaker and make sure you don't overeat. That is the concept you and the rest can't seem to get. Don't tell me that any plate of food with 150 grams of fat needs to come with some fat gram counter for you to know it might be a weight gainer, and not very healthy. That is ridiculous. Use your brain, control your own cravings and stop looking to the government to urge you to curb your appetite. That is your responsibility, not mine.
"Tell that to those who work for those junk food profiteers when they get laid off"
Bring it on. I'll say it right to their faces. I'm not the least bit afraid of my position.
"Slash their profits, regulate the hell out of them, and bury your head in the sand because as a result they cut jobs."
Typical emotional conservative reaction. I mention nutritional disclosure and it's construed to mean excessive regulation, slashing of profits, and mass unemployment.
Sorry, whenever a liberal starts talking about the necessity for government to warn people that greasy food is fattening, well, you know, the slippery slope. Once that gets done, what's next? I get nervous ~ ~ ~
What about excessive sodium? Do most people know about its ill effects?
What about excessive sugar intake? Do most people know about onset diabetes?
I don't buy the "people are stupid" excuse when we lead the world in obesity and junk food gets relentlessly marketed to our nation non-stop.
You seem to assume that by labeling food that people will stop doing it? The government does not make choices like this for people, they will eat what they want too. Many people know the effects of the ingredients you mention and then eat plenty of foods that contain them anyway, piling on more government mandated information sounds nice, but that's about it.
Actually, you are the one that is assuming that people will use the information to make a different choice. After all, if people kept right on eating the same foods at the same rates, then what would the economic impact be? You started out saying that this would cause unemployment.
The restaurants want to conceal this information for a reason. They must believe that it will influence food choices or they wouldn't be so vocal in their protestations.
Oh grow up and take responsibility for the choices you make, in this case with regard to what you eat. You know as well as anyone the effects of fat, sodium and sugar in your diet, people don't live under a rock in this country for crying out loud. Stop blaming the restaurants or food manufacturers because you can't leave a french fry, or a donut alone. Stop whining.
You didn't address my point....big suprise there.
I'll restate it: If people will not make a different choice when given the information then what why fight it? I'm awaiting for you sober and intellectually stimulating analysis.
I addressed your point, I take responsibility for my own choices, from what I eat and the effects my diet has on my health and lifestyle. If I choose to eat french fries, then I accept the risks. I don't blame someone else. Period. All your blathering nonsense is just an excuse to whine, I hear it here every day.
You didn't address the point. I'll restate it again:
If people will not make a different choice when given the information then what why fight it?
You claimed that people wouldn't change their culinary choices despite the information. However, if that were the case, then big fast food wouldn't fight it.
I take responsibility for my own choices, from what I eat and the effects my diet has on my health and lifestyle.---Tommy
That's a good thing. But why not also lower the cost of health care, including that which is paid for by government programs, by helping inform the less responsible people? Less money out of your pocket ultimately.
"The government does not make choices like this for people, they will eat what they want too."
More conservative emotions. Taking my position of informing the consumer and turning it into "government control of peoples' lives."
I'm not advocating that people have choices made for them. I'm advocating that people have the ability to easily make informed choices.
But if they spend a couple of thousand dollars in printing costs, they'll have to raise their french fry prices up two cents! Where the hell are your priorities, man?
Yeah, just make a hundred thousand or so copies of nutritional information at your local Kinkos for pennies, and then instruct your counter staff to stuff one in each customer's bag along with their fries. How simple is that!
Your grasp of doing business is amazing, only outweighed by your litigating skills.
Very simple.
You don't stuff them in bags if you're doing wall displays or placards. I'm also pretty sure that Kinko's wouldn't be involved anyway.
It would hardly be something to lay people off over, in any event.
I'm going to go to another thred for a bit. Can you keep Tommy busy for awhile? God I missed baiting that guy. Tommy, don't ever change you crazy diamond.
People have the responsibility to make informed choices.......liberals don't like that word because along with it comes accountability. And if we can blame McDonalds for our weight problem because they didn't give us the ability to make an informed choice, then we can be all emotional about why it's not our fault, and blame somebody else.
That's precisely the power that the nutritional information gives consumers. Information. How else are they going to get it?
...give 'em enough rope...
How do you know to come in out of the rain?
Common sense.
Information.
So you need information to come in out of the rain? OK...........
Depends on the makeup of the rain. If it's acid rain, then I should probably know that. Here in the NW, if you go in when it rains, you'll never leave the house.
I must be on Candid Camera here
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel for posts to continue the thread.
You won't win Tom. In fact, you never win. You should learn to pick your battles. It's nice to know you haven't changed in three years of doing the same thing over and over again.
OYGB, so your telling me all the rain in the NW is a acid? Or it just rains all the time and you never leave? Or is it that you do not like the rain? I would suggest just moving, it may help.
You're not very bright, are you markbigfoot?
"People have the responsibility to make informed choices.......liberals don't like that word because along with it comes accountability."
What responsibilities do businesses have to the public that they market and sell to?
Conservatives also don't like that word for the exact same reason.
"However, do many of you realize that the fast food industry you so hap-hazardly swipe at also employs many people who are not basking in monetary rewards? And to mandate that they disclose nutritional information on a greasy french fry so people will know it's full of fat is not only ridiculous, but would drive up the cost of those greasy, fat filled fries - making those who choose to buy them of their own free will be forced to pay more."
Drive up prices for the cost of some labeling ink that it makes he price tag too high? You're high, dude.
Whatever.
That's not even the problem so just stop pretending with your adolescent maunderings, In typical status quo conservative fashion, you're setting up the wrong debate. Unhealthy, high fat ingredients, like high fructose corn syrup, are government subsidized products and they are in everything. Those jobs you are oh so worried about can more than be compensated for by shifting our tax break and subsidy priorities to subsistence farmers, small family growers, food stamps that can be redeemed at farmer's markets and just working folks in general everywhere. Let the little guy take back the means of production in his own backyard or neighborhood market. Shift those subsidized food production jobs to rebuilding our infrastructure to keep up with the 21st century. God knows, every neighborhood in the country is need of repair and the private sector has failed to keep up their end of the contract.
Invest in universal healthcare. In job training. Make a social compact for affordable education that decreases the loan burden significantly in return for a couple years of public service. Free people from the shackles of the profit first free market gangsters who only like like free markets when they are making money and are socialists when they are losing money. Put people to work and get us on our fee again in the world. And just forget about that handwringing jive.
And there's a buck in it. Right wing talk is a racket.
Since a large chunk of the poor are children, how does that jibe with..." "people are poor in America ... not because they lack money," but "because they lack values, morals, and ethics." What have the children done???Yet these self-righteous hyprocrites have the nerve to call themselves "pro-life"!!!!What about that story about the "brother" needing a day off during the week to hang out at the liquor store???C'mon man!!!!!Give me a break!!!But this BS is what passing today as McCains attacks on Obama isn't it??Newscasters asking Biden "when did you stop being a Marxist questions"???? It's filtered into the mainstream of Politics and has been ligitimized by McCain/Palin. The assertion of people getting something for nothing...goes right along with they lack moral values etc...blah...blah...blah!!!It is really laughable but their serious...
This ties insidiously back into the "wealth redistribution" argument being floated by Gramps and Simple Sarah. In essence, they are making the argument that virtuous rich people should not be inconvenienced to help poor people, since they are poor due to their own diminished character.
It's all about greed without guilt.
It's all about greed without guilt.
Dr. Cunningham calling Dr.Limbaugh...
Apparently Cunningham is unfamiliar with the concept of "captialism".
There will always be a class of relatively poor people in a capitalistic society. Even if everyone had the same capabilities, the same intellect, the same talents, the same morals and values, some people would be more successful than others. Either it would be about luck of the draw, or appearance, or inheritance, or some other factor. The CEO and the janitor would have the exact same capacities and attributes, just different paychecks.
It could also be argued that many people are successful for the very reason that they lack values, morals and ethics, since those things can be quite the hindrance in a competitive market.
And, let's lay another Republican myth to rest; That CEO does NOT work any harder than the janitor.
It could also be argued that many people are successful for the very reason that they lack values, morals and ethics, since those things can be quite the hindrance in a competitive market.---Brabantio
Great point. Capitalism works on a macro level very well but the micro stuff can get very messy. The most relatable example perhaps is housing. We need rental housing stock to be built to keep the cost of housing down in a growing population. In order for builders to build they need to know that that there will be a market and there will only be a market if there are landlords or their agents who are willing to do things like evictions. No evictions or no rent increases eventually would mean the builders wouldn't build and the average price of housing would shoot up due to less supply.
I've listened to this guy a few times here in Dallas on a Sunday night. He is freaking awful. He claims to be a God-fearing man but he verbally assaults anyone that disagrees with him. Plus, he claims to love his country but he hates many parts of it like the usuals; San Fran, Chicago, LA, DC and NY. He uses the Hannity you're a geat America line too. These right-wing guys love to talk so tough but all their listeners call in and are terrified that if Obama is elected, the country will go down the crapper. Nice paranoia!.
Just saw Tom Delay on Hardball and can his hair be any freaking darker? Nice dye job. You are supposed to have at least some grays at theage of 61.
No. Their level of wealth or lack thereof is in direct proportion to the quality of service they provide to their fellow citizens and their communities.
That's an awfully elitist and arrogant thing to say.
I appreciate what you are saying but I respectfully disagree. My comments are not meant to be mean spirited. The whole idea is that if you can provide a service that is in demand you will get paid in proportion to the quality of your service combined with the amount of "need" for your service. Someone who makes very little money (a janitor) is easily replaceable while someone who makes a very large amount of money (a heart surgeon) is not easily replaceable because of the time it takes to become an expert.
Whatever. You just keep excusing tax cuts for CEOs, stagnant wages, higher costs and layoffs. Just keep putting obscene profits for the few on the top floor above the dignity of the many on the shop floor.
Living wages. That's the issue, not your un-American, elitist view that says one man is worth more than another. In America, all men are created equal. We are not "replaceable."
You can't be serious after seeing all the money the financial guys have made shuffling paper while severely damaging the economy!
Vee hass a knew trollie. Remember, catch and release!
Cunningham. Whatever. I've written this before to ca (a right-wing lunatic poster here @ MMFA) and I'll revive it now.
BC, you've got that ignorant Republican view of poverty that makes me sick. It's that prosperity theology. The logic boils down to the premise that the wealthy are prosperous because they are disciplined, therefore moral. Poor people are impoverished because they are not disciplined, therefore, immoral and deserving of their poverty.
In that way you can blithely go about your life rationalizing the disgusting inequality of wealth, tax policy inequity and disparity of political power that conservative economic ideology has institutionalized on behalf of the very rich. You can allow yourself to ignore the reality of discrimination or the vicious cycle of depression and insecurity that accompanies poverty. And you can tell yourself that intervention on behalf of the have nothings is immoral because they are immoral people. Your faith in your own certainty then allows you to apply, in one easy to consume narrative, the situation of one individual to all poor people.
You are a liar and a street-con. You are selling the something for nothing crap that has no place in the core American principles of government working for the benefit of anyone willing to work. Something for nothing is the conservative way. They want to suck profits from everything without returning anything. Fairness, to the conservative, consists of working a man to death for dirt wages, no pension, no healthcare, no way to advance and no interference from government regulation. So don't go there until you're willing to acknowledge the reality of the corporate communism that Republicans have legislated with the third lowest corporate tax rate in the world and subsidized commodities that guarantee huge profits.
Yea Man!!!
Sorry Evan,
I think you have made that up. Your story is a complate fabrication.
Why bother trying to make a point when you have to lie about it. That really doesn't help make your point it makes you look dishonest (which you are) and stupid as well as wrong!
Why can't you figure out that if you have to make up a story then your whole premise and point of view are false to begin with?
But you gotta admit, the wingnuts little stories are cute.Evans, here's a suggestion;on the job application you use, add some boxes to check for "complainer", "smoker" or "drinker". It sounds like you're really loose in the hiring department.
Sounds to me like you're just rationalizing paying dirt wages.
Bingo! I'd just add Power!
I agree with most of that statemant. Lets just take individuals in New Orleans whom have been receiving 3 years of free rent, free energy, food stamps and most have not even looked for a job. Their are fast food companies in that town that offer 8 to 9 dollars per hour and can not find people to work. IF they had any self esteem, they would get off the freebies and get a job and support themselves, but instead the will sit around or stand in line filling out paperwork to get more freebies. My fav is when they do a interview with them, in the background is a $5000 dollar plus big screen t.v.. At what point to you cut them off? In the world of Obama never, you just take from those whom have bettered themselves and give them more. Where is the logic there??? I do beleive that you help those whom can not help themselves, but what about those whom are just LAZY?
markbfoot i couldn't disagree with you more. While I'am sure that there are some people that will abuse the system most people i come into contact with are working and working hard 2 jobs even and are finding it hard to keep even. most of the jobs don't provide healthcare and purposely limit your hours to keep from paying benefits. I have some friends that work from temp. agencies which pay minimum wages with no bennies and no vacation or sick leave. i know this crisis and our problems are not because some poor people might have a Big screen TV. You also sound alittle self-righteous and judgemental "lazy???" and if they had any "self esteem???". Who the hell are you??? You would blame poor people while turning your back on policies and practices that produce poverty by lowering wages and standard of living.
Self Righteoius, please, facts. Here is your facts Congero - www.cato.org
I hope this give you the evidence you need. Sure it is not enough, never is.
Here is your facts Congero - www.cato.org
The Cato Institute is not a source for facts - they lie just as much as the other right-wingo wacko organizations.
I know anyone that does not agree with you is a bunch of right wingo's?
Mularkey.
It takes the exchange of contrasting ideas and solutions to arrive at a disagreement. All you have presented is one slanted report tailored to fit the you're on your own conservative agenda.
Give us specifics, details, statistics to support your crap or shut it. Nobody here wants to hear your stereotypes and anecdotes.
Roundhouse, please read above, sure this is not enough for you, but I can give you more. www.cato.org
From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is now almost universal acknowledgement that the American social welfare system has been a failure. Since the start of the War on Poverty in 1965, the United States has spent more than $5.4 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. What we have received for that massive investment is--primarily--more poverty.
Our welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers, who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church, and family are increasingly pushed aside; and most of all to the poor themselves, who are trapped in a system that destroys opportunity for them and hope for their children.
Edit: Testimony before House Ways & Means Committee
CHILD CARE FRAUD - July 17, 2003
(with follow-up)
[Back]
Statement of Michael G. Rice, President, United Council on Welfare Fraud
"Fraud and Abuse in Government Child Care Assistance Programs"
Chairman Thomas, Congressman Rangel, members of the committee: On behalf of the United Council on Welfare Fraud, I wish to express my gratitude for the invitation to provide written and oral testimony for you today and for your concerns on the topic of welfare fraud and abuse, particularly in the area of child care assistance.
About the United Council on Welfare Fraud and the information provided today:
For 32 years the major goal of the United Council on Welfare Fraud (UCOWF) has been to provide maximum effort towards the prevention, detection, elimination and prosecution of welfare fraud in its many forms and to effect recovery of taxpayer monies lost through waste, fraud and abuse in government programs designed to aid the needy. UCOWF’s membership currently consists of welfare investigators, administrators, and recovery specialists, as well as fraud prosecutors from 47 states, the District of Columbia and 7 Canadian provinces, establishing a network from Hawaii to Newfoundland.
Eighteen states had not been keeping statistics on child care fraud, but of them, several responded that the local county agencies administering the services did maintained fraud databases. In those states that did maintain detailed statistics, fraud was discovered in upwards of 69 percent of the investigations conducted with total annual discovered fraud amounts ranging from $10,000 to over $1 million.
Well, like it or not poverty shrinks under liberal leadership and swells under conservative leadership. LBJ's Great Society policies cut the poverty rate nearly in half, so I'm not prepared to listen to your fabrucations.
Give some context to your numbers. I know that numbers don't lie, but liars can use numbers.
69% of what? 69% of 1% of all welfare recipients? 69% of 100% of all welfare recipients? The difference could between a tiny number or a slightly less tiny number.
I'm all for eliminating fraud, but really how much defrauded money a year are we talking about? Ten million? One hundred million? That's what we waste every minute in Iraq, it's a raindrop in the ocean compared to the Wall St. bailout, it's chump change compared to the subsidies we give corporations every year to insure massive profits. So your fake concern because I know your real concern stems from your disdain for people who, on the whole despite their best efforts, have not been able to break the vicious cycle of poverty and become rich pigs like a talented capitalist ought to.
Markbfoot-
I agree with you. Think of all those lazy schoolteachers, firefighters, and even plumbers, who don't make very much money because they don't want to work hard and succeed like wealthy, moral Americans. They deserve to be taxed until they bleed, while rich, successful and talented people such as Paris Hilton and Kwame Brown (4th string Center for the Detroit Pistons) deserve huge tax breaks for their relentless and productive contributions to society and the financial system.
Kyle, I am not sure where you get the link between schoolteach, firefighters and even plumbers and those whom will not go to work. I would hand out a hand up to any of these individuals. You are blinded and use a example of a person that did not even fall into the subject I spoke of above in my orginial post. Schoolteachers and Firefighters in may states get tax breaks already. Lot of plumbers I know of make a very good living, I guess you have not needed on recently, same as any other hardworking individual. I am speaking of individuals that start a job and within two weeks are quiting and next thing you know they are filling unemployment. I know this becase I work in the industry, I see it everyday so do not tell me it does not happen. Ok, do you really think that Kwame Brown does not get taxed at a high rate, you are kidding yourself. Take the time and read and research what these guys have to pay in taxes. When they travel to states like California to work, they have to pay a city tax, a state tax for that day of work.
Highest income taxes for pro athletes Alberta, Canada
(NHL players only) 12.5% California 9.3% Oregon 9% North Carolina 8.75% Minnesota 7.85% Ohio 7.5% Utah 7% New York
6.85%
Tom Glavine isn't scheduled to pitch during the New York Mets' four-game road trip in San Juan this week, but Glavine will still owe the Puerto Rican government approximately $42,000 in income taxes.They pay a heavy, heavy tax burden. So guessing still not enough for you.
You are absolutely right on the money with this one! I have volunteered my services and help many times in and around the New Orleans area. This is much, much more common than you would ever belive. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the 'norm', but it is most definitely very, very common! So common, in fact, that the people in those same neighborhoods that are working their tails off are very disgusted with their lazy neighbors.
Screw your anecdotes. Give us facts or give us silence.
Roundhouse, what you want a name? A name so you can do an investigation in their background, is that what you want. Read above the information I gave you, if you do not accept that, then you just do not get it.
Whatever. At the time I told you to screw off you hadn't even posted the information you're telling me to look at.
Still waiting for the facts, though. Nary a one of you slimy cons ever come at us with anything other than anecdotes in these matters.
Phonies.
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t_rd by the clean end."
From the 2007 winning entry from an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.
Until righties can ditch their reliance on lies, misinformation, false narratives and finally debate poverty, or any issue, in terms of reality and fresh ideas, Republicans will occupy that rarified air of lunatic fringe.
No brainer on why poor people are fat. See how much processed food costs vs. healthy food. See how much cheaper crap bread is than good bread? What a pig this man is. And I assume he makes enough money to get the healthy information but he CHOOSES to bathe in the swill of racist ingnorance, thus proving that his government didn't teach him ethics either.
I don't think Cunningham has ever had a real job or worked hard in his life. I would hardly call talking for 1-2 hours on the airwaves hard-work. I would like to see him work a $20/hr job with no benefits for the rest of his life. He wouldn't do it - probably not even for $50/hr since that is too little compared to his paycheck now.
Steve, do you think that Cunningham just woke up one day and was given the job as a radio host? Sure you do, and I am sure that Mr. Cunningham is not rich, and would surprised if you looked in his background you will find out that he worked for min wage in the beginning of his career, and sure since that time, he has worked overnight shift, afternoon shifts and now after many years has gotten a prime time spot. Most radio host start out making min wage and over time, and I mean years of work, they make their way up the food chain. I bet he has worked a job with no benefits and he survived, and like many of folks you save your money, you take care of yoruself and if you do go to the doc, you make arrangements to pay cash.
For the past two years, I have had the great privilege of serving at a rural food pantry that provides food for 130 or more households per month. Incomes must be no more than one and a half times the "poverty" level, currently about $30,000 for a family of four. There is no one group that makes up a large percentage of our clients. There are the disabled who must live on a single payment of about $650 per month. There are the elderly who receive social security payments ranging from $350 a month and up. Both of these groups give lie to Cunningham's assertion that the poor "lack values, morals and ethics." Then there are the mentally ill and the children. And in a society where soda pop is much cheaper than milk, what do you expect people of limited means to purchase?
Does this guy claim to practice Christianity? If so, could someone please point him to the part of the Bible where Jesus says "Whatever you do for the least among menyou do for me."
Oh, that's right! These days, we get to ignore that part, and instead focus on everyone else's genital activity.
One second, I thought people got rich by lacking values, morals and ethics! (No offense to the hard-working people who make it big.)
I guess that's why they wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence. It comes right before the part about "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness".
Who are these people and what have they done with my country?