That’s Right Nate

Thoughts from a right thinker.

First Lady’s Homeless Shelter Visit Screwup

with 8 comments

My first reaction when I see a cellphone is Wow! he must be loaded.

My first reaction when I see a cellphone is "Wow! he must be loaded".

On Thursday March 5th, Michelle Obama visited a Washington D.C. homeless shelter. It was the epitome of all that is wrong with the Democrat Party in this country. I believe Rush Limbaugh said it best, “Because everybody or enough people are going to need the goodwill of Democrats in power in order to get by. Like, you’re going to have to see the first lady behind the counter at McDonald’s when you go in there as your poverty-stricken day drags on — take a picture with your cell phone while you go in there and get your McNuggets or whatever’s being handed out that day.”

What Limbaugh is getting at is that the First Lady’s trip to the shelter is yet another slap in the face to the people in this country who are making over $250,000. Wouldn’t it have been more effective for the First Lady to volunteer her time at an exciting Washington D.C restaurant like Citronelle. Chef Michael Richard and Executive Chef David Deshaies can do amazing things with a black truffle and with a 9 course tasting meal for $175 and a 15 course tasting meal at $225, the restaurant has something for people of all income ranges.

A restaurant like Citronelle will use only the freshest ingredients. As a result, it doesn’t take long before the restaurant will refuse to serve something to its customers. What happens to these leftover lentil coated salmon or squab leg confit? It gets donated to area homeless shelters. This is supply side economics at work. This is the approach Nancy Reagan would have used. This is what a responsible first lady would have done. What Michelle Obama is doing is agitating for class warfare. Why not just let the homeless eat quail egg?

Also notable about Michelle Obama’s homeless shelter trip was the homeless man taking her picture with his cell phone. If he’s homeless you have to wonder how could he afford a cellphone and where would they send the bills? My fellow conservative blogger Jon Swift already examined this issue in depth in his call to make poverty less enticing and I don’t want to duplicate his efforts, but the point remains cellphones cost hundreds of dollars per year to operate and there is no reason for a homeless person to be spending his day downloading apps when he should be looking for a job so he won’t be homeless anymore. I urge the homeless person who took the First Lady’s picture to think about the value of that cellphone. You may be able to sell it for the cost of a cheap motel room or at least start a fire with it to keep warm.

Advertisements

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. That’s true, Nate: what is a homeless person doing with a cellphone? I’m not homeless, and even I don’t have a cellphone! Ok, I know, I’m from Brazil, which is almost the equivalent to a homeless country, but still.
    (Just kidding: everybody in Brazil has a cellphone nowadays. I’m basically the only person without one. People look at me very strangely).

    Lola

    March 8, 2009 at 2:25 pm

  2. […] More: First Lady’s Homeless Shelter Visit Screwup « That’s Right Nate […]

  3. What is the repulican problem with poor people. You guys hate poor people. You want to give money to people who have so much money they couldnt spend all of it in 10 lifetimes. But that still isn’t enough for you. I don’t get it. A slap in the face to people making over $250,000? I don’t think so. I think those people are living quite comfortable. It amazes me how your party has tricked you into thinking and acting against your own best interest. Do you make a lot of money or something? If you do then I understand your position. But someone who is making $30-70,000 a year would certainly be somewhere between distressed and just making it in terms of their economic situation. Why would someone like that want to give more money to the rich? I hate this whole “big companies create jobs” crap. Its not true. Small businesses employ more people than large companies do. And you know who owns small businesses? Guys like you (I’m assuming, I sincerely apologize if I’m wrong) and me who aren’t poor but certainly can’t retire any time soon. Why not help them out? I’m not against companies making a ton of money but at some point a ton of money becomes an obscene amount of money. These people who make an obscene amount of money control everything. They’ve made us slaves to their will. They’ve put a system in place that keeps everyone where they are. The rich stay rich and the poor are lucky to stay poor but usually get poorer. Republicans love to talk about the “American Dream” and that’s exactly what it is – a dream. It never becomes a reality. In fact it is so far from reality we’d be lucky if we could even have it as a goal.

    Bill

    March 9, 2009 at 10:18 pm

  4. Bill, aside from having certain questions about the behavior in that avatar of yours, I think you are missing simple economic policy. Yes, I do make over $250,000 a yea, but my employees and I work very hard for that money. When I make more money I am able to tup better. When I tip better, everybody makes more money. Look up supply side economics sometime.

    thatsrightnate

    March 10, 2009 at 5:06 am

  5. No way, Nate, you can’t be making 250,000 a year and still be owing your brother-in-law 35 bucks! But if you are making that, let me reinforce the invitation for you to move to Brazil.
    Seriously, if I made between 30,000/70,000 a year I’d be rich. I make 10,000 a year and I have a good life. But Republicans are greedy, Bill.

    Lola

    March 10, 2009 at 11:10 am

  6. nate, my avatar isn’t obscene. i think it just kind of looks that way when its really small. originally it was a picture of a man posing for a picture with a donkey and then i photoshopped it to be cartoonish. i never saw it that way, lol!

    Bill

    March 10, 2009 at 1:14 pm

  7. Well I definitely feel much better now Bill, but I should remind you that just like photoshop other technology that seems harmless can actually have negative consequences.

    thatsrightnate

    March 10, 2009 at 3:18 pm

  8. Thanks for the vote of support Lola. As a Chicago school teacher, I make buckets of money (for working 75% of the year, too), but it’s the principle of the thing. $34.95 here, $36.05 there, being related to Nate adds up!

    steve

    March 10, 2009 at 3:19 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: