Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 2:04 PM ET, 12/27/2010

Sarah Palin's nightmare: What Michelle Obama dares not propose

By Stephen Stromberg

Discussing the bizarre obsession among some on the right with Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign, Fred Hiatt points out that the first lady isn't actually proposing scary-sounding social engineering policies:

Insinuations from her critics notwithstanding, Obama has not endorsed nanny-state or controversial remedies such as ending sugar subsidies, imposing soda-pop taxes or zoning McDonald's out of certain neighborhoods. Instead, she is pushing for positive, voluntary change: more recess and physical activity, more playgrounds, more vegetable gardens, fresher food in schools and grocery stores, better education on the issue for parents and children.

Voluntary virtue, as Dick Cheney should be first to point out, should be praised. Given the mockery she's endured, it would be politically unwise for the first lady to propose much more. But that doesn't mean doing more than encouraging exercise and eating vegetables is bad policy.

I'm not sure about those zoning restrictions that Fred mentions. But everyone should favor eliminating sugar subsidies. And corn subsidies, since high-fructose corn syrup is a ready substitute for sugar. They're expensive for taxpayers, they encourage unhealthy eating, and the benefits generally go to wealthy agribusinesses that don't need them. A model of obviously terrible federal policy. And, given how much sugary drinks contribute to obesity and, therefore, impose costs on society that their prices don't reflect, modest soda taxes aren't a bad idea, either. Something like a cent an ounce, which a group of doctors, researchers and policy advocates proposed last year in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Every time I write something like this, one of my colleagues pulls me aside and reminds me, "But McDonalds fries are delicious. Every now and then, I need a few." True. So don't ban them, or dessert or sugary drinks. But don't expect everyone else to help you pay for them.

You may not feel it, but if you pay taxes, you're subsidizing others' unhealthy lifestyles every day, either through direct subsidy of their ingredients or through higher medical bills, the costs of which are often socialized. These policies aren't about making bad-for-you foods unnaturally expensive. Sugary drink taxes and other such things are about not making pancreas-busting foods deceptively cheap.

By Stephen Stromberg  | December 27, 2010; 2:04 PM ET
Categories:  Stromberg  | Tags:  Stephen Stromberg  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Needed: more church outings for the Obamas in 2011
Next: Blizzards and political fortunes

Comments

This has nothing to do with a First Lady encouraging better nutrition for American children and everything to do with the Fox News racial and political hatred stirred up around everything and anything related to the Nation's first black President.

Posted by: areyousaying | December 27, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

More liberal nanny state expansion of governement. Apparently Stromberg was asleep on election day.

Posted by: oldno7 | December 27, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

If you could explain how eliminating a subsidy provided to private business is "nanny state expansion of government," I'd surely appreciate it.

Posted by: dcd1 | December 27, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse


If Michelle advocated looking both ways before crossing the street, I'm sure the right wing nuts would find some fault with that suggested.

I have a proposal: save your Obama hating for something...important?

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | December 27, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

With french fries (really invented in Belgium) you win the trifecta of nutritional disaster: fried grease + sugar + salt; they don't really taste good, they just hit that brain center that shouts "more more more!".
I miss the days when Conservatives supported rational thought, self-discipline, and physical fitness.

Posted by: onexge | December 27, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

The key to 'okay' 'good old American subsidies' is that they generally favor tiny population states with ag and extractive industries. These subsidies basically buy senators and that extra unwarranted electoral college power. As a result, you generally have a less educated population damning 'elite' coasts and demanding a balanced budget when their states, in fact, consume more federal dollars than they contribute. They are the welfare queens that Reagan mistook for a woman of color driving a Cadillac.

Posted by: twstroud | December 27, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

How would we go about overriding the corn subsidy lobbyists?
I'd sure like to see the tobacco subsidy gone - it's ridiculous that taxpayers spent over $200 million on it in 2009.
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=tobacco

The corn subsidy is even higher - nearly $4 billion last year.
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn

I propose the government gets out of both businesses, and let's see who screams loudest: The Dems, The Reps, or the farmers.

Posted by: sea_lyon | December 27, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"More liberal nanny state expansion of governement. Apparently Stromberg was asleep on election day."
more reactionary bot-commenting. Why not all reactionaries use the same handle, because you all say the same things, over, and over, and over...my head is spinning. Advocating healthier lifestyles is not nanny state, moron. Its called not subsidizing your neighbors poor health choices.

Posted by: sherlockjt | December 27, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama says 'Eat your vegetables, children' and it sends the foaming-at-the-mouth republicans into a wild-eyed spittle-lacquered frenzy. Kind of hilarious, really...

Posted by: underhill | December 27, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

AreYouSaying has a point. In following the tirades against Michelle Obama, I often feel as if I'm listening to children telling siblings "You're not the boss of me!" Much of the reaction seems driven by not just the First Family's ethnicity but also their educations - the combination really seems to push a button for many people. While I don't know if I would support the soda taxes or zoning restrictions, I think it's a mistake to make those issues about the Obamas themselves.

Posted by: Carstonio | December 27, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

An old pal of mine once told me, "nutrition doesn't taste good." He's right: fat tastes better; you know, bacon, butter, fries, steak fat. Nevertheless, Michele Obama is right about eating right. Sarah Palin is just trying to appeal to the fast-food eating population, which in this country is big. These people really do not care about nutrition and healthy eating.

Posted by: dudh | December 27, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

An old pal of mine once told me, "nutrition doesn't taste good." He's right. Fat tastes better: you know, bacon, butter, fries, steak fat. Nevertheless, Michele Obama is right about eating right. Sarah Palin is just trying to appeal to the serious fast-food eating population, which in this country is big. These people really do not care about nutrition and healthy eating.

Posted by: dudh | December 27, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Lets get the government out of all subsidizing of produce. Let the free market decide what the fair price is. If a product is harmful to one's health, then taxes should be levied to defray the costs of the medical issues sure to follow. There are plenty of low cost foods that aren't poisonous. Tax policy has been used to persuade consumer behavior since inception.

Posted by: DontGetIt | December 27, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin says that parents are the best judges of what their respective children should eat. That's why we have such an increase in obese children, starting with Sarah's very own chubba-wubba Bristol. Hardly a good advertisement for Sarah's policy.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | December 27, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

You just prove a point. If you got the message and feel you have to explain it to the simple people then what your saying Michelle is not proposing is exactly what she is. You understand it just like everyone else, but you like and approve of social engineering or else you wouldn't have tried to whitewash it and make it appear less then what it seems. It's social engineering and you know it. No passes here for a far left radical wife who believes in social justice as much as Obama does.

Posted by: houstonian | December 27, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Amusing to learn that good judgement and moderation are now part of the "radical left social agenda".

Posted by: OldUncleTom | December 27, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"Sarah Palin is just trying to appeal to the serious fast-food eating population"

Um, not quite. She's trying to appeal to people who feel resentful. I know a couple of people who embody the mentality, griping that they wouldn't be surprised if the government made it illegal to be fat. I doubt they seriously believe in the likelihood of such a law. The idea simply feels true or authentic to them. They seem to be threatened by social change and they look for convenient villains or scapegoats.

Posted by: Carstonio | December 27, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

to "areyousaying":

are you really dumb enough to believe the utter nonsense that you posted and/or you hope that your readers are that "empty between the ears"?

fwiw, disagreeing with anything/everything/something/nothing that BHO & Michelle want/say/propose/believe is not racist, even though "knows nothings", nitwits,leftist idiots & DIMocRAT extremist lunatics constantly rant/rave/whine/whimper that it always is.
(fwiw, "playing the race card", in just one word, makes you look: stupid. further, few "normal people" believe the whiners anymore.)

sincerely, Retired MP46

Posted by: retiredMP46 | December 27, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

it has EVERYTHING to do,
with some creepy woman deciding
she knows best how everyone else
should live thier lives.

michelle should keep her mouth shut,
and thin up alittle, herself'

Posted by: simonsays1 | December 27, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Why no mention of the $4.5 billion dollar “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act” which just put the Federal government in charge of everything food-related in EVERY public school in all 57 states? "Voluntary" my Aunt Esther!!

http://michelleostyle.blogspot.com/2010/12/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger.html

Posted by: sandbear | December 27, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

@ simonsays1 - unless you are blind, it is easy to see that Michelle is in great shape - especially for someone her age.

Posted by: ken44 | December 27, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Isn't Michelle Obama talking about people taking personal responsibility for their health? I thought that was a core Conservative principle?

Posted by: smith6 | December 27, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse


No, no, surely it's all good.

How many times, when some yahoo conservative yelps wolf, will anyone listen. Liberals'll be able to drive a truck the continuing hot air.

Posted by: whistling | December 27, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Here's a test:

Who said this?

"We have alarming levels of heart disease, diabetes, childhood obesity--and all of these maladies are on the rise. Now, I won't stand here and lecture--for very long--but health care reform on an individual basis is often just this simple: we could save a lot of money, and a lot of grief, by making smarter choices.
It starts by ending destructive habits, and beginning healthy habits in eating and exercise.”

Was it Michelle Obama?

No! It was Sarah Palin, who as governor, went on to say:

“In my case, it's hard to slack when you have the ever-present example of an Iron Dogger nearby. But many of us could use a little more time in our great outdoors--and when you live in the Great Land, there's no excuse.

Protecting good health is largely a matter of personal responsibility, but government policy can help. Our new Alaska Health Care Commission will recommend changes that affect the well-being of Alaskans far into the future."

Gee whiz! Was she big bad nanny government forcing the nice people of Alaska to stop eating cookies? Or was she simply using the bully pulpit she had available to make an obvious point, the exact same point Obama is making now?

Does she not realize that what she said before was written down?

Posted by: fmjk | December 27, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

The depth of the fear and hatred of the First family is to be pitied! These folks have not come out of the 1950's...

I like the way the quitter is ignored more by more everyday!

Posted by: jetlone | December 27, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

PS -- and why hasn't the Post printed Palin's previously totally contradictory statements on the matter when it manages to breathlessly publicize all of her snarky tweets?

Stromberg, all you have to do is google it...

Posted by: fmjk | December 27, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Americans are pitiful. We are a consumer culture, but in the end we are failures at consuming!

Sure we (except for the very wealthy) spend every cent we get, but we spend in ways that destroy the success built by earlier generations of smarter consumers who had historical perspective of The Depression & WWII.

Cheap junk from WalMart that falls apart. Crap food full of grease and salt and sugar that slams taste buds while giving you the most expensive gift you will ever get: heart disease. Anything on credit if we can get it.

It's insanity. Doing with somewhat less crap would send less $$ to China. Eating better would help our health. Borrowing less would stabilize the economy. But noooo, Americans NEED that plastic junk, the are DYING for another mouthful of fat and salt, they can't RESIST using credit.

And so we have these American aholes denigrating the First Lady for offering a good idea, when in fact they KNOW a First Lady is supposed to take on tasks exactly as Mrs Obama has.

The bottom line is that half of Americans are stupendous jerks, and there is nothing to be done about it.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | December 27, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Take heart all. The more of these moronic positions Palin takes, the more likely she'll end up the Republican nominee for 2012. She'll screw up the Republican Party again and totally ruin any chance of a Republican presidential win. Then maybe the Republican Party will find their way back toward center and offer some more moderate choices. They're on a path that the majority in their party don't want.
Right now the GOP is a fast moving, one-track future train wreck called the Palin Express.
Like the old saying goes about wrecks - they are facinating to look at, but you're glad your not a part of it.
Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Posted by: independent1VA | December 27, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

independent1VA - Palin is a side show, not a show worth watching.

The real problem is a body of lies perpetrated by Faux Noise in support of Neocons and lobbies like the NRA & AIPAC. They have the power, not Palin. With or without her, the process of beating up Obama continues. She makes no policy and can be replaced with some other idiotic liar. See "Boogie Man" the Lee Atwater bio. The GOP Koolaid Machine is a mutha.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | December 27, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

It is so sad that Palin has the need to show the public how prejudice she is.
I would hope reading some of these blogs
would make her think before she opens her mouth(not cute or witty).You are turning intellegent voters off.George Wallace wouldn't vote for you. ( Do you know the name)?

Posted by: deanstyl | December 27, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

It is so sad that Palin has the need to show the public how prejudice she is.
I would hope reading some of these blogs
would make her think before she opens her mouth(not cute or witty).You are turning intellegent voters off.George Wallace wouldn't vote for you. ( Do you know the name)?

Posted by: deanstyl | December 27, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

fmjk: Thanks for pointing that out. I wish more reporters and pundits would have.

I also wonder what Palin's acolytes would think if they knew she requested nearly a million dollars from the Alaska Legislature for her anti-obesity initiative, and that when the Legislature didn't fund it, her administration procured almost a half-million from the federal CDC instead?

Of course, her acolytes would have to be capable of thought to recognize that Palin is a pure hypocrite and a professional phony who will seize any threadbare opportunity to kvetch and whine about the Obamas.

Instead, as some right-wingers have so aptly demonstrated here, they don't think. They just react, knees a-jerking.

Posted by: BlueDog1 | December 27, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Right on independent1VA!! I've been sitting back and enjoying the show since this bimbo was plucked out of a hole in Alaska and thrust at us like a blast of puke, and the sweetest part is, the repubs have lost control of her ignoramous affect on their once Grand Old Party. Now it is the Weak-tea Non-existant Party. Truthfully, sitting back and watching her
single-handedly destroy it is SWAAEEEEEET!!

Posted by: patriotgmalou | December 27, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Why ask readers to comment if you are not going to post it!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: deanstyl | December 27, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama is creepy. I don't take advice from creepers.

Posted by: jefferson4 | December 27, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

The overwhelming evidence of hatred on this blog is the hatred that you pseudo-intellectual morons on the left have for everything Sarah. It amazes me how you functional-idiots for the European socialists, including their Steppin-Fetchit in the Whitehouse, really don't see anything wrong with making laws to moderate behaviour and taxing people who do things you don't want them to do. You'll not be satisfied until you have every black man, woman, and child working the "back fo'ty o' duh Democrat plantation... and it always fuh duh chil'rens". You make the rest of us sick with your intellectually impoverished agendas and we're getting rid of you one election at a time...cherish the moments while you may. The black population is getting wiser and wise to you each year. All this sucking-up to the first-broad will not save you when the real Blacks figure out what you've been doing since the Dixiecrats won the race war. What was it Bull Connors said, "Keep them dumb, keep them warm and keep them fat. That way we'll have them voting Democrat for the rest of America's life!!"

Posted by: ElRondo | December 27, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: twstroud
The key to 'okay' 'good old American subsidies' is that they generally favor tiny population states with ag and extractive industries. These subsidies basically buy senators and that extra unwarranted electoral college power. As a result, you generally have a less educated population damning 'elite' coasts and demanding a balanced budget when their states, in fact, consume more federal dollars than they contribute. They are the welfare queens that Reagan mistook for a woman of color driving a Cadillac.
___________________________________________

twstroud - your comment sums up perfectly the argument I've been trying to make for a number of years - thank you.

Posted by: jjjjjjj | December 27, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Absolute agreement: government subsidies of agribusiness are insane--taxpayer money goes into the hands of a few while the many are seduced by mountains of cheap sugars the consumption of which lead to personal misery and enormous social costs in the form of unnecessary medical care. But cutting the subsidies is only step one. Taxing socially undesirable products and behaviors is the norm in all modern societies--it isn't any more "social engineering" than any other tax policy. Cigarettes and alcohol and petroleum (except in the U.S.) are only the most obvious examples. Soda can easily double in price due to taxes and still be affordable for the most diehard Cokeheads. But the higher price would cut down on consumption by children, those who have the most to lose by activating a craving for the stuff. Taking bad food and sugar-laden drinks out of schools is also an obvious and necessary step to take. And fast-food restaurants most certainly ought to be zoned out of residential neighborhoods. If you want junk you ought to be made to go to the outskirts of town to get it. Obesity is a screaming crisis in America--so many people just don't look like people anymore that it's simply insane to continue along a path that favors corporate profits over human well being.

Posted by: antypasa | December 27, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

HFCS high fructose corn syrup is responsible for a dangerous epidemic of obesity and diabetes. People under the age of 50 are “children of the corn.” Like Stephen King's thriller, they are reaping the consequences of the food industry’s high fructose corn syrup. They were children or young adults in the late 70s, 80s and 90s when high fructose corn syrup was introduced to the American food supply as a cheap replacement for sugar. Now many of them are struggling with an epidemic of obesity and diabetes, also being referred to as diabesity.

In a recent chemical analysis of eleven carbonated soft drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), researchers from Rutgers University found very high levels of reactive carbonyls.

Reactive carbonyls, which have been linked to tissue damage and complications of diabetes, are elevated in the blood of people with diabetes. A single can of soda, however, has five times that concentration of reactive carbonyls. Old-fashioned table sugar, on the other hand, has no reactive carbonyls.

Posted by: alance | December 27, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

If people who support Palin want to consume prodigious amount of sugar and fat while getting no exercise, that's their right. I suggest they also consider chain smoking and heavy alcohol consumption. And don't bother with any of that socialist health care thing, trust in sister Sarah to take of you.

Posted by: vmax02rider | December 27, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Due to federal agribusiness subsidies, every dollar of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10. Of the $113.6 billion in taxpayer commodity subsidy payments distributed by the USDA between 1995 and 2004, corn drew $41.8 billion -- more than cotton, soy, and rice combined. What's wrong with this picture? Maybe it's the Iowa presidential primary. Where do the presidential candidates and your congress people stand on corn subsidies? Who sucks up to ADM?

The occurrence of new cases of type 2 diabetes has doubled over the past three decades, according to a report in the American Heart Association's journal Circulation - June 2006. The percentage of overweight children in the United States has tripled since 1980. The epidemic of type 2 diabetes cases across the nation is likely to lead to a substantially higher incidence of strokes among middle-aged adults and newly diagnosed diabetics.

"Most, but not all, of the increase in diabetes occurred in people who were obese - those with a body mass index of 30 or more," according to the National Lung, Heart, and Blood Institute in Framingham, Massachusetts.

Posted by: alance | December 27, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

@ ElRondo

What planet do you live on? How do you make this kind of argument with a "black" President in office? Those who hate that fact, lash out against anything and everything he or the FL does? Who wants to keep the African-American populace in check? Those who continually spew hatred for anything and everything the Obamas do? That would the right-wing "Party of NO" who want nothing more than to see the POTUS fail.

Who sounds more racist? Those that support the "black" FL's initiative? Or those that rail against it despite the fact that before she began this positive campaign for good nutrition, Failin' Palin supported the exact same initiative! It's pure hypocrisy.

Give me a break and stop arguing against something that your beloved $arah supported, until she didn't because she isn't the one sitting in the White House with McCain.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?!! As is jealously from a self-serving woman who wants nothing more than the spotlight and the $$$ that follow. The pettiness comes along for the ride is more than obvious.

Posted by: Mandy_M | December 27, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

OK, alance, I'll bite. You're talking about Chi-Tang Ho's 2007 paper, right? If you're gonna use these things as sources for your comments, the honorable thing to do is to provide references.

As a matter of fact, there's some question about the safety of sucrose (table sugar)-sweetened sodas, as the processing & carbonation process may well break the glucose & fructose into "unbound" fragments leading to the same reactive carbonyl species noted by Ho. But he didn't use a sucrose-sweetened soda as a control (he used diet soda containing no sugar), so this wasn't obvious.

I wholehearted believe that too much sugar is a bad thing, and it appears that it may be especially bad when incorporated into carbonated soda drinks. But you shouldn't lightly quote research results without context, and without references.

Posted by: Bob-S | December 27, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

alance - Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that corn industry subsidies are bad policy, and that ingesting large amounts of HFCS is unhealthful. But to imagine that there's a golden age of honey & table sugar when things will be all better is magical thinking, and not helpful. The research doesn't seem to bear it out.

Posted by: Bob-S | December 27, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

areyousaying wrote>>>This has nothing to do with a First Lady encouraging better nutrition for American children and everything to do with the Fox News racial and political hatred stirred up around everything and anything related to the Nation's first black President.

Truer words were never typed.
Some people just get off on hating Democrats, not just opposing their positions - but hating them. And some of the haters even call themselves "Christians."
But they continue returning to the sources of HATE that keep their ulcers in knots and their eyes shooting blood.

Posted by: angie12106 | December 27, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

"And, given how much sugary drinks contribute to obesity and, therefore, impose costs on society that their prices don't reflect, modest soda taxes aren't a bad idea, either. Something like a cent and ounce, which a group of doctors, researchers and policy advocates proposed last year in the New England Journal of Medicine."
==========================================

LOL!! WOW, only a liberal would think this is a good idea. If something like this passes, just think of all the other taxes the federal govt could impose on things that impose a cost on society that their prices do not reflect. The amount of things the federal govt could tax is limit-less. You could tax the use of everything from automobiles (accidental deaths from car accidents) to eating ice-cream (surgar intake), not to mention katchup (sugar content) and any candy product.

Proposals such as these are slippery slopes, once you start down this path we would be approaching McCarthism-like policies on everything in our society.

This is probably exactly what liberals want.

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | December 27, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

All this Michele Obama stuff boils down to is telling us what to do (slavery) and spending money we do not have (dems). She has said so many things that I detest that I do not listen to her anymore. I do not like paying for her 24 assistants, either. Who does she think she is, the mother of a god?

Posted by: annnort | December 27, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Just because Michelle Obama became the first lady, she could not very well be an instant activist as many would want her to be. Even though she graduated from good schools, prior to being married to Mr. Obama and afterwards, she did not show any interest in improving at least the lives of her fellow blacks, so be grateful that at this stage she even takes a stand on something!

Posted by: maitami | December 27, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Just because Michelle Obama became the first lady, she could not very well be an instant activist as many would want her to be. Even though she graduated from good schools, prior to being married to Mr. Obama and afterwards, she did not show any interest in improving at least the lives of her fellow blacks, so be grateful that at this stage she even takes a stand on something!

Posted by: maitami | December 27, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

I get so many sample stuff for free its awesome. Actually it is not difficult to find them just search online for "123 Get Samples" It is the best way!

Posted by: doramartin28 | December 28, 2010 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Michelle is to be complimented for role-modeling a healthy diet.

Beyond that, there is plenty of information available to all literate people about what is or is not healthy to eat.

We don't need authoritarian do-gooders saving us from ourselves with laws promoting one sort of food over another.

Let the people decide - for better or worse.

Posted by: Parker1227 | December 28, 2010 3:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama appoints Donald Berwick aka “Dr. Death Panel” using recess appointment to head Medicare and Medicaid

Dr. Death Panel quotes include:

“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

“Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”

No wonder Obama didn't want Congress to question him in an open hearing.

Posted by: fury60 | December 28, 2010 4:57 AM | Report abuse

Okay, reading this thread I'm convinced most Americans are morons.

That said, you should eat vegetables, lean proteins, healthy fats (like olive oil and walnuts), and avoid all processed food and sugars.

The evidence is indisputable. Also, both anaerobic and aerobic exercise is critical.

If you have a problem with this, you're a moron and I welcome you to eat McDonalds 5 times a day. If you're going to rip someone for promoting this for your children, you're guilty of child abuse.

Yeah, you're free. Free to be a complete tool.

Posted by: dmblum | December 28, 2010 5:36 AM | Report abuse

@Parker

"We don't need do gooders saving us from ourselves" - um, okay, are you saying obesity isn't a problem in a America. If it is, you do need something done, as the status quo is a total failure.

Let the people decide. We'll let the decide, sure, but they could use some info as they're making horrible choices at the moment.

Does anybody really think a law will be passed forcing people into a certain diet? If so, you're a nut.

Posted by: dmblum | December 28, 2010 5:40 AM | Report abuse

Right wingers have an insatiable appetite for picking a fresh "straw man" to hold up for ridicule over the same old tired arguments. Its the arguments right wingers are obsessed with keeping alive, not an economy, not jobs, freedom and opportunity for ALL, and certainly not a country.

Posted by: tigman_2 | December 28, 2010 6:37 AM | Report abuse

"Given the mockery she's endured, it would be politically unwise for the first lady to propose much more."

Actually, because of the mockery, she should be more out front, more in-the-face with her cause. Let's see Michelle Obama or Sarah Palin, whom of these two would I believe when it comes to anything intellectual?

Posted by: democratus | December 28, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

Why should my tax dollar go towards paying for the numerous healthcare problems of a large portion of a population that stuffs itself with junk and only walk when forced to do so? Never mind that every time one obese person joins the pool of the insured, my premium goes up because the pool has now become riskier.

Sure you can stuff yourself into heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, joint diseases, etc... Just don't expect the rest of us to participate in the cost of your healthcare.

Posted by: Gatsby100 | December 28, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

OMG, SOMEONE IS TRYING TO GET US TO EAT HEALTHY, I AM SOOOOOOOOOO AFRAID. SARAH PALIN AND HER ILK ARE THE STUPIDEST PEOPLE, I MEAN REALLY AWFUL STUPID. NOT ONLY THAT, I AM PRETTY SURE SHE FEEDS HER RETARDED SON A STRICT DIET THAT HELPS HIM PERFORM AND FEEL BETTER, SHE IS SUCH A GERK.

Posted by: betheloveyouare | December 28, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Diabetis is expensive to treat.It gets more expensive when one has to have feet cut off and start using a wheelchair. Our addiction to a combination of salt, sugar and fat is killing us. One way to lower health insurance costs is to stop putting junk food in our mouths. Everytime a bottle of soda, $1.69 and some Twinkies go in our mouths...we continue the process of getting sick and we cost more to treat. A combination of education, and charging more for junk food plus eliminating subsidies for huge farm corporations who do not need the subsidies. Remember all those years when Adults fed cheap, subsidized junk food to our school children? When the price of cigarettes went up...a lot of people decided they
might be better off with more vegetables! We are all here to learn.We can no longer afford to be sick and to insure people who choose to be sick!

Posted by: judithclaire1939 | December 28, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

We, the taxpayers, subsidize corn farmers so they can make (inedible) corn that is turned into high fructose corn syrup which is then purchased by snack food makers. The subsidy helps them keep their product cheap and still make a hefty profit.

This is not a left/right issue. This is an intelligent/ignorant issue. We pay to keep the price of unhealthful foods artificially low, then we pay again when people end up with chronic illness from a lifetime of ingesting these foods. It's sheer madness.

But guess who fights to keep these subsidies in place? A very powerful lobby called the Snack Food Association.

True conservatives would line up against corn subsidies.

Posted by: trace1 | December 28, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Sort of turns things on it's head for a lot of people when an elegant, educated, black lady is telling the un-elegant, poorly educated, fat white people to shape us and feed thier kids right. You can read and feel the unfocussed rage that it provokes in some. Not how thier world is supposed to be but it is how it is. Keep up the good work Mrs. Obama.

Posted by: withersb | December 28, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Also, wouldn't a "true conservative" be alarmed that the military cannot recruit enough qualified candidates because the populace is simply . . . too . . . fat?

Posted by: trace1 | December 28, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Problem - more people are having to use food stamps for their families now and food stamps were cut in order to save teachers' jobs.

Food prices are going up - fresh fruit and vegetables are over a dollar a pound. Parents have to make those purchases last for a month, so are buying filling but not necessarily nutritious items for themselves and their children.

But kids can get breakfast and lunch at school, you say. What about the dinners during the week, the weekends, the long holidays?

McDonald's? A Happy Meal once a month is not going to kill a kid nor is a Big Mac once a month going to kill an adult. Parents used to be able to say "no" to their children and mean it - so if you don't want your kids to have a Happy Meal, you make that decision, not the government.

Posted by: Utahreb | December 28, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

it is not a voluntary change if the government mandates it! i am sure you would say it is permissible for men to engage in sodomy because you would say it is their choice and their private life. well then, i would say it is permissible for people to eat what they desire; it is their choice and their private life.

Posted by: jpdtiga | December 28, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

You could tax the use of everything from automobiles (accidental deaths from car accidents) to eating ice-cream (surgar intake), not to mention katchup (sugar content) and any candy product.

Proposals such as these are slippery slopes, once you start down this path we would be approaching McCarthism-like policies on everything in our society.

This is probably exactly what liberals want.

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | December 27, 2010 10:48 PM
**********************

Astounding. Thank you for not being an educated elite. This post clearly plops you into the uneducated elite category.

First of all, all those things ARE taxed, ever hear of a sales tax or license plates? Maybe we wouldn't need these if your GOP overlords didn't push farm subsidies every year and convince you that Ma and Pa down on the farm will starve without them.

It is also abundantly (that means very) clear you have absolutely no clue who Joseph McCarthy was. You'd get along great with him, he spent his time in the limelight hunting down the specter of communism.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son." TP'ers take this advice.

Posted by: booerns14 | December 28, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

The deluded GOP believes the American people gave them a warm embrace on election day and told the Democratic party to take a hike. They'll learn otherwise once they start stating openly and clearly their legislative agenda. That they haven't yet done so - that they've done nothing but criticize Obama - tells you they have no specific solutions to the many problems facing this country.

Posted by: WiseUpAmerica | December 28, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

but the enviro nuts already have ELIMINATED CORN SUBSIDY.... at least for sugar.

enviro nuts created the biggest farm subsidy in the history of farming..... corn for ethanol.

big govt is at the core of all economic problems.

this author should be fired.... corn and high-fructose syrup have artificially HIGH prices not low.

the left drove up corn prices with a "new" subsidy on corn..... and the author has the gall to push his ignorance on an already stupid populace.... shame on the post.

Posted by: docwhocuts | December 28, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

but the enviro nuts already have ELIMINATED CORN SUBSIDY.... at least for sugar.

enviro nuts created the biggest farm subsidy in the history of farming..... corn for ethanol.

big govt is at the core of all economic problems.

this author should be fired.... corn and high-fructose syrup have artificially HIGH prices not low.

the left drove up corn prices with a "new" subsidy on corn..... and the author has the gall to push his ignorance on an already stupid populace.... shame on the post.

Posted by: docwhocuts | December 28, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Can you hear that Tea Party Express rolling down the tracks? You washington elites are woosies. You close your city down after 2 inches of snow! it will be a wonderful day when the marxist is removed from office. The freedom to choose and not to be dictated to in something as simple as what I choose to put in my mouth is now in danger? What next, they are going to tell me I have to buy health insurance?

Posted by: jecarter1019 | December 28, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

"I miss the days when Conservatives supported rational thought, self-discipline, and physical fitness. "


Those days are long gone. As you see from the comments on this blog, they are now all whining, self-destructive, angry trained seals. Everyone one of them sounds exactly like every other one -- proud products of fox brainwashing.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 28, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Palin, and her ilk, don't seem to have a problem with telling women how to manage their health and bodies. The conservative Daddy State.

Posted by: jckdoors | December 28, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

"Something like a cent and ounce,.."

You need more than a spell checker to get it right.

Perhaps you meant "an ounce?"

Posted by: GaryEMasters | December 28, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Liberals - "don't regulate TV for kids because the parents are the best judges"
"Regulate Happy Meals because parents can't be trusted".

Having said that, I couldn't care less what any first lady says about anything.

Posted by: AlvinYork | December 28, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

As a conservative it's fine with me if the
First Lady wants to champion health. I've never heard nor am I aware of her stating anything controversial or statist on the topic.
But for those of you who paint all conservatives as Fox-loving, unthinking, racist automotons, you're stereotyping with the other side of the wide brush you criticize others about. It would bring you credibility to acknowledge there are liberals who want to treat sugar and butter as if they were tobacco and narcotics, subject to great taxation or even banned.

Posted by: slatt321 | December 28, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

so...don't tax sugar. Just quit paying sugar subsidies. There is your left-right divide in a nutshell.

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | December 28, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

the first lady's proposals are, in fact, the only health care proposals that even have a chance at decreasing the nation's long and short term health care costs.

why?

they are the only proposal, ,that if adopted, have even the slightest chance of improving the nation's overall HEALTH.

Posted by: boblesch | December 28, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

I commend the first lady for her efforts to focus attention on the issue of obesity in this country. There is an old saying that goes something like when you hate someone, you should dig two graves. One fo the person you hate and one for yourself. The people on this site lambasting and degrading the first lady for something as innocent as recommending good health for our fellow Americans I believe are culturally psychotic. Here's a tip. Nobody is holding a socialist gun to anyone's head and forcing Americans to eat healthy. Go ahead...eat that second bacon laced cheeseburger and follow it up with a slurpee. And sure...go ahead and have that third piece of chocolate cake for desert, because you know what...every time you look in the mirror and see what a fat, sloven, piece of useless crap you are, then just be man or woman enough to own your decision, because you certainly wont be able to blame the first lady. Some of you miscreants should be ashamed of yourselves (but since you apparently dont have a soul, it's probably too much to ask).

Posted by: ruthella10 | December 28, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

healthier citizens = lower costs for care

sick people = high costs of care

do the math yourselves.

the spiralling cost of care directly coincides with the spiraling decrease in the nation's health.

the decrease in health is inversely proportional to the increase is portable electronics and the increase in the presence of GMOs in our 'food' supply.

really - do the math yourselves - you'll be quite surprised to see that we are choosing to make ourselves sick and sickness is breaking the bank.

Posted by: boblesch | December 28, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse


More liberal nanny state expansion of governement. Apparently Stromberg was asleep on election day.

Posted by: oldno7 | December 27, 2010 4:08 PM |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obviously oldno7 was comatose when his baby sitter read the story to him.

The article was exactly what the last election was about. Waste of tax money!

Paying farm subsidies to mega-corporations for them to cheaply sell unhealthy manufactured food products is a waste and develops unhealthy grownups who waste even more money on our already overstressed healthcare system.

Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | December 28, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I'm all for someone pointing the way and encouraging people, including me, to eat better. But things like "modest soda taxes" become immodest high taxes all-too-easily. One need only look at the history of NYS sales taxes and lotteries to see this. End subsidies to agribusiness...it is bad policy and it is expensive.

That said, it is not all that easy to eat well. Few restaurants in my area serve "healthy" food. Supermarkets are small and have few fresh fruits and vegetables. I have no idea how this problem can be solved.

Posted by: ptgrunner | December 28, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Great. Now can we have a tax on sexual promiscuity to recover the cost to society of AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases, the cost of out-of-wedlock births and children growing up in broken homes, etc?

The scientific evidence connecting sexual behavior to these outcomes is a whole lot more definitive than the connection between Happy Meals and obesity.

Posted by: getjiggly2 | December 28, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Don't forget how our government paid Domino's Pizza to stick tons of extra cheese on their pizzas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html?_r=1

@getjiggly2, there's a difference between imposing a tax and eliminating a subsidy.

Posted by: sarahabc | December 28, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Stromberg, like all liberals, contorts himself into a pretzel trying to justify his need to tell others how to live their lives.

He's right about one thing: taxing sugar on one hand while subsidizing it (both sugar and corn) is surreal, but it's par for the course when the social architects are piloting the ship. Take with one hand, give with the other, skim of the top to support a bureaucratic constituency, all while acting sanctimonious.

So, yeah -- get rid of the subsidies, but don't enact the tax.

The real meat of his socialist inclinations comes, though, when he explains why it's "ok" for us as a society and as individuals to control the behavior (through tax policy) of our neighbors and fellow citizens: because the health care costs are "often socialized". Never mind that he is one probably one of those who pushes for even more socialization of health costs.

So out comes the dirty, and frightening, reality: the socialization of health costs give social architects the rationale they need to pursue endless, compulsory change in the behavior of their fellow human beings' behavior.

Of course, there are a few of us left who know the simplest, cheapest, and most effective way of curbing such behavior: let the people doing it suffer the predictable consequences. In this area -- sugar, obesity, etc. -- just make people pay for the consequences, and I guarantee, incidence will decline dramatically. Heartless? Maybe. Cheaper and more effective than the nanny state approach? Definitely.

Posted by: mmwatch | December 28, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Really, you know knowing about the US sugar support system. The sugar subsidy in the US has been largely carried out by keeping foreign sugar out of the US and thereby raising sugar prices above the world price, thus making children who buy candy bars and drink soft-drinks subsidize large corporate sugar producer. The moral implications of that are not directly related to childhood obesity in the US. Elimination of the sugar program would over the long run LOWER sugar prices in the US.

Posted by: crete | December 28, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure that Mrs. Obama's encouragement to eat better and exercise will do much good, but it seems
OK as a First Lady project. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, has done it before. Others will do it in the future, I hope.

What interests me is the extreme hostility that her advocacy is provoking. When Laura Bush was encouraging children and their parents to read, I don't remember her being accused of shoving elitist nanny-state values down our throats. And when Nancy Reagan promoted the "Just Say No" to drugs campaign, which to me came across as somewhat odd but well-meant, I don't remember the public yelling that this Oscar De La Renta-clad unelected woman should stay out our private choices.

Posted by: Hunter | December 28, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

This conservative Republican thinks the FLOTUS is absolutely right about changing eating habits. And school cafeterias should follow suit by charging more for unhealthful foods such as chips, soda, fruit juice and pizza and less for healthful foods such as the salad bar, a vegetable plate and non-fat milk. The choice would remain but the kids would get the message that there is a high cost to eating unhealthful foods.

Posted by: MrBethesda | December 28, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

What this has to do with Sarah Palin, I will never know. Where the Obama's are concerned, I think people are just tired of them trying to reengineer this country with their socialist, elitist ideaology. They never quit. They go from one thing to another, telling us how to live, how much money we can make, and now how to feed our kids. My granddaughter got an apple and a pear from school last week; the apple was soft and shriveled and the pear was so hard it could not eaten. So much for healthy government food. What the Obama's don't realize is the poorer they make the general population, the worse their diet will be...or perhaps they do realize this....and then it can be GOVERNMENT PROGRAM TO THE RESCUE' and their hands on all that money.

Posted by: nana2cierra | December 28, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I must say, all the racist comments are becoming very old and even laughable. Do you realize you lose credibility when your first line of defense is racism toward anyone who disagrees with the Obamas or the democrats? To blindly follow anyone is dangerous, and to follow them just because they say they are from the party you have joined, or the party your parents supported, is foolish. There is a huge difference between democrats and radicals; there is no radical party, so they pretty have have to say they are democrats. Do you not realize these government-takeover policies and socialist agenda are just as damaging to democrats as conservatives? Think about it. Encouraging kids to read and to not take drugs is a far cry from telling people how they should eat and proposing legislation,taxes, regulations, etc., along with putting up billions of dollars to make it happen. Enough already. I support our Constitution, which Obama has openly said he does not...even though he took his oath with his hand on it. If you support our Constitution in this country you are considered an extremist or racist??? What's wrong with this picture??? Just a whole lot of smoke screen. Past presidents (and I don't mean just Bush) may have started us on this socialist course, but Obama and comrades have definitely pushed the accelerator to the floor. It's time to stop all the nonsense and corruption.

Posted by: nana2cierra | December 28, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"You may not feel it, but if you pay taxes, you're subsidizing others' unhealthy lifestyles every day, either through direct subsidy of their ingredients or through higher medical bills, the costs of which are often socialized."

Mr. Stromberg,

This is an argument you need to be really careful about using.

Unfortunately, the rabid fat-people haters have leapt onto this "my taxes pay for your self-indulgence" hobby-horse, and they're not letting go. It's become their favorite argument, primarily because it gives them cover for their childish but venomous attacks on fat people.

These same people remain stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge the extensive research that has demonstrated the connection between consumption of animal products -- particularly red meats -- and the incidence of heart attack, stroke, and kidney disease.

These folks are as capable of burning through Americans' tax dollars as are the fat people they demonize, but they're permitted to twist the whole argument without censure from any corner.

Please don't become one of those smug, all-too-predictable voices that champion some of society's worst hypocrites.

Posted by: haveaheart | December 28, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"No passes here for a far left radical wife who believes in social justice as much as Obama does.

Posted by: houstonian | December 27, 2010 4:56 PM"
__________________________________________

Today I learned: "social justice" is apparently a bad thing to believe in. Huh. Who knew?

Posted by: Patzer111 | December 28, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I think the government takes in more of our money than we can even comprehend. I heard someone the other day suggest that Americans pay all of their taxes once a year, which would really bring home to all of us just how much of our earnings we give the to government. They would much rather slip it out of our paychecks a little at a time so it doesn't hurt as much and we don't realize how much they are really taking. The next question is what do they do with it all?! Remember that social security would not be insolvent if they had used the money as it was intended......but they never do that. It would be interesting to know how much money they really take in, don't you think? Now they are pushing and passing other programs as big or bigger than social security....under the guise of helping Americans, but really to distribute wealth and bail out other countries. Not to mention......all of our politicians become rich or richer after being elected....what's up with that? I don't think that was THE PEOPLE'S intention, either. Let's all get our heads out of the sand and take back our rights....rights that no other country in the world have. I think the plan is....if we can just wait out the babyboomers, the next generation will be a piece of cake since they have not been taught history and they don't pay attention; they are too busy with their electronic gadgets to even look up.

Posted by: nana2cierra | December 28, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"They go from one thing to another, telling us how to live, how much money we can make,"
Posted by: nana2cierra | December 28, 2010 11:24 AM
____________________________________

Would you kindly point me to an article or some other piece of evidence showing that Obama directly or indirectly told the American people "how much money we can make?" I would appreciate that. Thanks! :)
Patzer

Posted by: Patzer111 | December 28, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

"They go from one thing to another, telling us how to live, how much money we can make,"
Posted by: nana2cierra | December 28, 2010 11:24 AM
____________________________________

Would you kindly point me to an article or some other piece of evidence showing that Obama directly or indirectly told the American people "how much money we can make?" I would appreciate that. Thanks! :)
Patzer

Posted by: Patzer111 | December 28, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

He has said in his own speeches that he thinks at some point we have earned enough, and he thinks our wealth should be redistributed. If you have not heard this, then you have certainly not been listening.

Posted by: nana2cierra | December 28, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

a penny an ounce is scarcely a modest tax-

avg price is a buck for 64+oz[2-litre]
would be about 70cent tax on a dollar product-
modest???
only in a libprog mind...

Posted by: feanor1 | December 28, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Isn't Michelle Obama talking about people taking personal responsibility for their health? I thought that was a core Conservative principle?

Posted by: smith6 | December 27, 2010 5:46 PM
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was up until Michele Obama said something.

Posted by: catmomtx | December 28, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

as an alternative- to soda tax-
i propose a direct approach-
weigh everyone-
tax the obese-
anyone care to rebut that...???

Posted by: feanor1 | December 28, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing wrong with someone suggesting people take personal responsibility, and leave it at that. However, it seems to have gone much further than that. If I'm not mistaken, $4 billion plus has been appropriated for these efforts. You know, people come in all shapes and sizes. Just because someone is thin does not mean they have no harmful or expensive dependencies. Just because you cannot see their 'problem', does not mean they are problem-free. There are many more insidious problems than being overweight. It's easy for democrats to choose a target and demonize them. Some of the worst people I know are thin, and some of the best are overweight. Guess what! People are different. I have no doubt that thin people do things that cost society lots of money.....don't you agree??

Posted by: nana2cierra | December 28, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

How about if we tax the dishonest and the arrogant?

Personally, I don't think the government needs any more money. The government needs to be smaller, we...literally WE....need to pay government employees comparably with private sector employees, and Congress should consider only single-topic bills so they can't hide other sneaky corrupt stuff in them! Without things like this, we could keep our money and stop talking about how much someone weighs!! You are being manipulated and don't even realize it. Nothing like getting the masses to turn on each other, right?

Posted by: nana2cierra | December 28, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

How about if we tax the dishonest and the arrogant?

Personally, I don't think the government needs any more money. The government needs to be smaller, we...literally WE....need to pay government employees comparably with private sector employees, and Congress should consider only single-topic bills so they can't hide other sneaky corrupt stuff in them! Without things like this, we could keep our money and stop talking about how much someone weighs!! You are being manipulated and don't even realize it. Nothing like getting the masses to turn on each other, right?

Posted by: nana2cierra | December 28, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

ANY and ALL criticism of the First Lady's
endeavor to encourage us to become a healthier nation, is the same kind of criticism our President endures for ANY
and ALL endeavors to CHANGE the status-quo of our nation. No matter how the GOP, the Conservatives, the Tea Beggers, and repubs in general deny it, this is the result of the rampant racism within this segment of our society.

Posted by: patriotgmalou | December 28, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

You know, when they try to manipulate us and create deliberate chaos and animosity among Americans.......our only recourse is to get bach to where we started to find what is true. We have a Constitution and we need to start measuring all the proposed nonsense by the Constituion and go from there. Otherwise, you are going to just be lied to and manipulated for the sake of someone's agenda and need to impose their will on Our Country. It's not rocket science! It doesn't take much research or digging to find out what is oging on....if you really want to know.

Posted by: nana2cierra | December 28, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

yet to see a way to measure arrogance-
scales however take one right to the problem-

the debate is about obesity-no???
and its attendant costs-
while i agree its all absurd-
highlighting absurdity serves to make it clearer-

Posted by: feanor1 | December 28, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I beg to differ that arrogance is difficult to measure. Your tone of your comment, and many others here, is what made me think of it.

Don't be fooled. Just because Michelle Obama says it's so does not make it so, and she is picking her pet peeve. You don't really know. I do know one thing, though, and that is that Big Government is not the answer.

I don't think that just because we give them all our money, this problem...or any other problem...will be solved.

Posted by: nana2cierra | December 28, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"as an alternative- to soda tax-
i propose a direct approach-
weigh everyone-
tax the obese-
anyone care to rebut that...???
Posted by: feanor1 | December 28, 2010 1:31 PM"

Yes, feanor1. I'll rebut.

Let's start super-taxing red meat, the "other white meat," poultry, and fish. Those who eat the first two are responsible for overloading our health care system with heart attacks, strokes, and kidney disease. Those who eat poultry are ingesting large quantities of antibiotics that are actually toxic to the human body. Those who eat fish are being slowly poisoned by mercury.

Given that the vast majority of Americans consume these foods to excess, they are the ones driving up our health care costs and, hence, our taxes...and in numbers far greater than those who are obese.

But, of course, the beef, pork, and poultry lobbies spend billions of dollars to make sure that Americans keep clogging their arteries, so the likelihood of legislating such a tax is remote.

Keep tucking into those steaks and chops, feanor1. Just keep in mind that our tax dollars will be keeping you alive once you stroke out or have "the big one."

Posted by: haveaheart | December 28, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Enough BS to fill my pool...

McDs frys are delicious? They're crap. Now that no one is allowed to use the Good oils & fats, there are no good fries, least of all McDs.

Kill sugar and corn subsidies? Kill all subsidies, 100% of them. Subsidies are nothing more than income redistribution to buy votes. Special interest welfare and bribery. Bribes and payback for campaign contributions and vote buying. Why do you think every national politician spends more time in Iowa than any other state including their own? Buying votes from farmers and their employees. Especially farm subsidies. When was the last time 90% of Americans bought food products from a small family farmer? They are largely extinct with most food products being produced by large corporate farms, many of whom pollute our ground and other waters excessively. Time to stop paying farmers not to produce, time to stop subsidizing their research through public and private institutions.

We subsidize sugar farmers, put import duties/taxes on sugar imports and for what, so we can pay more to increase corporate farmers profit margins. I used to sell commercial trucks after I retired from the Marines and I never sold a truck, car or SUV to a farmer, whether for his business or his families personal use (while titled in the company name for tax purposes of course), that didn't write a check and I sold plenty. We'd negotiate over the phone/fax and often I would never meet the buyer. And they always paid cash, never financed. Is farming a tough business? Yes, and so is every other one. The promise of America feeding the world is largely lost due to subsidies and governmental interference.

And corn subsidies? The worst thing you can imagine. The subsidies are largely for ethanol which uses more energy per gallon to produce than the ethanol makes. It uses huge amounts of fresh water and is a terrible pollutant of our ground water and streams. We pay farmers not to plant corn, we pay farmers to grow corn for ethanol and because corn products are used in most foods we buy and many non-food products, it costs the consumer a fortune for higher priced gasoline, food and other products plus the cost of the subsidies. And we had to borrow the money for the subsidies. Probably from China.

Is it any wonder this nation is going down the drain? We could fire half the government, stop half the programs and spend half as much and be far better off.

No subsidies for anybody, period, and that includes health care. Pay for your own life and no one cares what you eat.

This country is going to collapse because we all want someone else to pay our bills.

Is sugar bad for you? The absolute worst food product you can put in your body. Is what you eat my business? No.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have."

Posted by: semperfi6591 | December 28, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

semperfi6591 wrote: "Pay for your own life and no one cares what you eat."

Except we do pay for people with chronic diseases, and it has nothing to do with the recently enacted health plan. We all have been paying -- for decades -- in the form of higher premiums.

Hospitals will, in the end, treat people who have no insurance. Do you propose throwing them on the side of the road? Is that what kind of country you want to live in? And if these people are uninsured, hospitals pass these costs on to insurers (of patients who are insured) in the form of higher costs, and insurers will pass it back to consumers in the form of higher premiums. That's what has been happening for a long, long time.

Posted by: trace1 | December 28, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Worth considering: human beings are perhaps the only mammals that take in calories from liquid after weaning.

We're probably not meant to drink anything other than water.

By the way, does anyone remember what a juice glass used to look like? It was tiny, compared to today's serving.

Posted by: trace1 | December 28, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

feanor1 wrote:
as an alternative- to soda tax-
i propose a direct approach-
weigh everyone-tax the obese-
anyone care to rebut that...???
---------------------------------
Ha Ha! Amen, brother (or sister).

For an example of the slippery slope, check out haveaheart, who is clearly standing in line to propose imposing his/her quasi-religious views on meat eating
on the rest of us, once we've set the tone with limits on sugar and chips. And if you disagree, you are smug (heretic?)!

Posted by: mmwatch | December 28, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

hey there mmwatch--
--as you point out--
how obesity is the topic- but libprogs immediately reveal the underlying agenda you highlight--
i never mix religion and food-lol

my next steak i shall consume most smugly-lol more

soda tax???absurd-
taxes will make no pig thinner-
or healthier-
just poorer-

Posted by: feanor1 | December 28, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm conservative and I would end corn and sugar subsidies tomorrow. I'd also end ethanol subsidies and requirements, as they are just backdoor corn subsidies. We PAY to have our environment damaged.

But - I would not add another tax - on soda or anything else. Those taxes are endless. Soda today, sugar tomorrow, salt the day after, it is all just pols presenting us with another item they can suck money from.

Posted by: ksm12009 | December 28, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Maybe she was saying that if you get out and get some exercise like her family does you don't have to worry about having desert. I think she what she is saying instead is get up off your behind and you don't have to worry about anything that the first lady has to say. She doesn't need to lead or run your life. She is saying take responsibility for your and your family and get out and get some fresh air.
As for her speaking skills, she has no more gaffs than Pres. Obama. Of course most people didn't report the use of Marine Corpse instead of Marine Corps or pronouncing a simple planet's name correctly. There again maybe someone changed the name and I didn't get the memo.
I believe the President is a great orator, but I am tired of the lip service. We need action not a cheerleader!!! And how long is Bush going to be in the White House. I thought once President Obama winning the election that President Bush had to leave! I also don't understand why he blames President Bush for the Budget. President Obama voted for the budget during the President Bush's term. He could have voted NO!!! I really wished he would have. Pres. Obama is Pres. Bush on steroids!!!!

Posted by: enawn00 | December 28, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

I agree with SimonSay1...First, I disapprove of the government legislating what I feed my children. Michelle should take some of her own advice since while visiting India, she appeared to have gained at least ten to twenty pounds through her hips. Is she just trying to make a name or gain attention or can she not think of a different approach to recognition?? Putting designated food on the school children's plate, will certainly cause a waste of food. The children will not eat what they do not like or want!

Posted by: perfectlyaged | December 29, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

It's been said that gluttony is the only deadly sin that shows.

Posted by: MaryFloyd | December 30, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm lovin it! Palin is really showing her colors (and lack of intelligence).

Her trivial tirades only inflame the political divisions, and actually serve to divide the republican party itself.

You go girl!!!!

Posted by: Handimam | December 31, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Arby's fries leave McDonald's in the dust, and both Arby's and Checkers also have onion rings, for those who like a change from fries every once in a while.

Posted by: seltzer1 | January 1, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Are you serious? The submission from 'areyousaying' (especially the contextual meaning imposed in the very grammar used), illustrates yet again how absurd and so very ignorant it is to focus only on ill-concieved percpectives. That is, any challenge to any political action Michelle Obama imposes upon very non-political and truly personal issues, is "it's because they're {the Obamas} are black"!? I just can't figure out which is more offensive to our intellegence: is it the incinuation that Mrs Obama feels that she actually has any authority to dictate to the citizens of the USA how and what we are to eat-as it reflects how SHE THINKS we are to look, feel and behave?; or does she really think that by making the absurd speculation that sugary sodas SOLD thru vending machines at schools, and the occasional Happy Meal, dessert, etc...is really going to cost US Taxpayers how many millions in taxes? to support who's medical bills(she obviously hasn't read over her husbands 'ObamaCare' policies)? Where did those figures come from? And just when did the farmers in this nation become money obsessed and intent to extort the good people of the USA? Seriously? This is a woman who on national TV, expressed her true frustration in battling her own daughters sudden obesity? A nine year old girl who is just a little bit chubby, humiliated on national television!

Posted by: rhart40 | January 1, 2011 9:52 PM | Report abuse

How wonderful to have a First Lady who encourages healthy eating for our kids, which will help improve their uptake of education and reduce the cost of healthcare and also help the US compete in the world. Nobody complained when Betty Ford encouraged us all to take alcohol overuse seriously. I didn't hear the Republicans scolding her for being part of a Nanny State. Hmmm was it because Betty Ford was white? Was it because, even though Michelle Obama is NOT telling us what to do, she must be wrong because she is black? Oh yes, and I thoroughly agree that we should cut subsidies for the Farmers, after all that is what we should do in a society that is not a Nanny State.

Posted by: Ex-Mil | January 2, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company