Via Americablog comes this quote from “libertarian” Megan McArdle: “The poor don’t need more food. Obesity is a problem for the poor in America.”
That’s right, it’s the rich who need more food. It couldn’t possibly be that healthier food costs more that poor people consume unhealthy food.
This is pretty much what you get when you have a fully-flowered two-tier society – complete failure of comprehension. She’s probably never even noticed the working poor who cook her food, clean her house, tend to her garden or raise her kids.
Anyone NOT going out of their way to score cheap, petty (and fraudulent) politcal points can easily see that her point is that increasing the dollar amounts without does nothing to solve the underlying problems i.e. the substandard decision making by “the poor” (on average) when it comes to healthy living.
“i.e. the substandard decision making by “the poor” (on average) when it comes to healthy living.”
I can always count on you to prove your sub-human intellect.
The United States government subsidizes the American food industry to the tune of billions of dollars a year. Much of this goes to make cheap sugar cane and corn syrup. On the other hand, fresh fruits and vegetables get almost no money.
It appears that the government is paying to a system that makes poor food choices cheaper.
Hey, I’m with ya: Cut those subsidies!!!
The problem, of course, is that if any Republican were to ACTUALLY propose such a thing, we’d hear nothing but how those evil, dastardly Rethugs were trying to bankrupt all those poor, family farmers.
Someone should cram these links into Megan’s piehole:
Study Links Fast Food to Overall Poor Nutrition and Obesity Risk …Study Links Fast Food to Overall Poor Nutrition and Obesity Risk. Fast foods displace milk, fruits, fiber and non-starchy vegetables while children consume …
http://www.childrenshospital.org/newsroom/Site1339/mainpageS1339P1sublevel42.html – 68k – Cached – Similar pages
Childhood Obesity: Why Are More Poor Children Overweight? | BlogHerChildhood Obesity: Why Are More Poor Children Overweight? … Fast food? Well, there are a lot of theories, and this new study only suggests that more …
http://www.blogher.com/childhood-obesity-why-are-more-poor-children-overweight – 40k – Cached – Similar pages
FAST FOOD DENSITY IN POOR AND BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS MAY CONTRIBUTE …The number of fast food outlets in poor and black neighborhoods may play a role in the obesity epidemic among residents of these areas, suggest the results …
http://www.cfah.org/hbns/news/obesity09-10-04.cfm – 13k – Cached – Similar pages
Pros and Cons of a Zoning Diet: Fighting Obesity by Limiting Fast …In short, it keeps out Burger King, McDonald’s and other fast-food chains. … epidemic of obesity in poor neighborhoods — but that “various approaches need …
http://www.nytimes.com/…/5+62UyKjxaoncQ – Similar pages
Fast Food Twice a Week Linked to Obesity & Diabetes 1/22/05Yet even though fast food is known to be of poor nutritional quality, … of most fast foods were likely the primary cause of the obesity link, they said. …
http://www.mercola.com/2005/jan/22/fast_food.htm – 44k – Cached – Similar pages
It couldn’t possibly be that healthier food costs more that poor people consume unhealthy food.
You’re basically making the same statement Megan is. She’s saying there isn’t a lack of access to food and that more food stamps isn’t the answer.
In addition, the notion that it costs more to eat healthier is not necessarily true. It is access to the kinds of places that sells healthier food that is the problem as well as the time needed to prepare meals as opposed to popping something in a microwave oven.
As for those subsidies. The Democrats control Congress. Guess that wasn’t worth their time.
Megan McArdle gives sheltered, coddled, pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-libertarians a bad name.
“Hey, I’m with ya: Cut those subsidies!!!”
Wow. The hypocrisy you display is simply unnatural.
I could start my response with, “Anyone NOT going out of their way to score cheap, petty (and fraudulent) politcal points can easily see that…”
But you are not worth any response that doesn’t begin and end with, “Fuck off, SaveFarris.”
We actually agree on an issue and your response is to tell me to “f*** off”?!?
Now we know which side of the aisle is the one blocking bipartisanship…
He told you to fuck off
a. Because you’re a clown who has been wrong on every issue you’ve commented on
and
b. Implying that the poor are fat/undernourished simply because they choose to not have proper nutrition. Even Jay sort of figured it out.
and
c. Because you are so dense that you can’t understand WHY your response is deserving of his rancor.
Bipartisanship is date rape- what Democrat said that? Oh wait, that was a Republican.
Farris’ idea of “bipartisanship” is kind of like Congressional Democrats idea- bend over while some conservative assclown spews nonsense. Not happening here.
Thanks Oliver for continuing to point out the utter moral bankruptcy of conservatives.
SaveFarris: “We actually agree on an issue and your response is to tell me to “f*** off”?!?”
No we don’t agree, you sub-human. So you are either lying are stupid. With you, I really can’t tell.
SaveFarris: “Now we know which side of the aisle is the one blocking bipartisanship…”
Bipartisanship only works when both sides have the same goal in mind: improving the country. It is clear that Republicans have one goal in mind: maintaining power.
“It is clear that Republicans have one goal in mind: maintaining power.”
Would you claim the unstated complement – that the Democrats, in contrast to the Republicans, do *not* have a similar goal in mind, that of gaining power?
Oy GEVALT!