Has The Mayor Totally Eaten Away At The Public's Desire To Do Good?

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s food police have struck again!

Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.

Glenn Richter arrived at a West Side synagogue on Monday to collect surplus bagels — fresh nutritious bagels — to donate to the poor. However, under a new edict from Bloomberg’s food police he can no longer donate the food to city homeless shelters.

It’s the “no bagels for you” edict.

“I can’t give you something that’s a supplement to the food you already have? Sorry that’s wrong,” Richter said.

Richter has been collecting food from places like the Ohav Zedek synagogue and bringing it to homeless shelters for more than 20 years, but recently his donation, including a “cholent” or carrot stew, was turned away because the Bloomberg administration wants to monitor the salt, fat and fiber eaten by the homeless.

Richter said he was stunned. He said his family has eaten the same food forever and flourished.

“My father lived to 97; my grandfather lived to 97, and they all enjoyed it and somehow we’re being told that this is no good and I think there is a degree of management that becomes micromanagement and when you cross that line simply what you’re doing is wrong,” Richter said.

But Mayor Bloomberg, a salt-aholic himself, was unapologetic.

“For the things that we run because of all sorts of safety reasons, we just have a policy it is my understanding of not taking donations,” Bloomberg said.

Told that his administration recently enacted the policy, the mayor was Grinch-like.

“If they did in the past they shouldn’t have done it and we shouldn’t have accepted it,” Bloomberg said.

Richter said that over the years he’s delivered more than two tons of food to the homeless. He said Mayor Bloomberg is eating away at his ability to do good.

The ban on food donations was made by an inter-agency task force that includes the departments of Health and Homeless Services.

Please offer your thoughts in the comments section below …

Comments (323)
  1. Ruski says:

    Who needs charities when we can redistribute wealth?

    1. ral says:

      Well, when the redistribution goes from the rich to the poor, we don’t.

      But, when the redistribution goes from the middle class and the poor, as it has been for the last decade, thanks to Bush and the Greedy Oil Plutocrats of the GOP, then an increasingly larger portion of the population nees whatever help they can get, including charities.

      I’m so over the meanspiriteness of Republicans who want to claim righteousness when everythin g they do is simply geared to their profit at the expense of everyone else.

      The Ugly Americans, redux.

      1. Joel says:

        jHuh. When did Bloomberg join the GOP? I missed that.

        1. EMBrown says:

          Been GOP for a few years now. He jumps from party to party like we change our clothes, as it suits his wants.

          1. joe says:

            no. he has always been a republican.

            1. JJV says:

              Bloomberg was a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT who switched to the INDEPENDENT PARTY and now has become a REPUBLICAN> All this 4 feet 6 inch midget cares about is getting elected to something because it makes uo for him being a frakin’ dwarf, or so he thinks.

            2. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

              You can’t possibly be that stupid for real. Have you picked up a newspaper in the last TEN YEARS? He’s a LIFELONG DEPRESSIONCRAT and a very hard-left one at that. He simply used the GOP registration as a way to bypass the crowded Depressioncrat primary in 2001 and then formally declared as an INDEPENDENT because even he was too embarrassed by the Depressioncrat party to formally rejoin them. He’s NEVER been a Republican, except in name only for a brief period, which ENDED about 6 or 7 YEARS AGO.

              1. call_it_like_I_see_it says:

                rookie tool ^

              2. Chudster says:

                The stupidity is in thinking he represents Dem philosophy at all. He’s a party chameleon in name as it suits his chances. He’s not even Trump light. He is Trump in another life.

        2. Arrant says:

          Bloomberg is a Republican. How did that escape your notice?

          1. SerfCityHereWeCome says:


        3. Tyson says:

          Are you serious with this question? He always HAS been in the GOP.

          1. RJE says:

            Bloomberg life long democrat only changed to be able to run for NYC mayor , political move to set him up to run for Pres. Didn’t work out. check it out. Was not an ideological move. Leopard can’t change his spots, still a big gov liberal that believes Gov knows what’s better for you than you do. He would never have gotten elected in NY if he wasn’t. Hmmm, Obama, Obiden Opelosy, Oreid, Obloomberg kind has a nice ring to it, Good Luck NY. Stupid is as stupid does.

            1. Will says:

              That’s flat out false. You’re literally making stuff up.

              This is how teabaggers debate, folks — they make stuff up.

              1. Joe Hassen says:


                He was a dem. beore seeking office

                1. Bohemond says:

                  This is how liberals debate, folks: they call people names, and parade their ignorance.

                  1. Colby says:

                    Yet, Republicans don’t?
                    Republicans use a fairy-tale book, I’ll let you guess, to pass laws against equality.
                    If that isn’t ignorant, I don’t know what is.

                    1. Bohemond says:

                      “Pass laws against equality?” Tell me again, which was the party of Jim Crow and eugenics?

                      Which “laws against equality” are you referring to?

                    2. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

                      Laws against “equality”? I’ll acknowledge the legitimacy of gay “marriage” when you can design– for the same cost– a viable commercial airliner which can fly with both wings on the same side of the fusilage.

              2. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

                Good God, you’re clueless.

              3. Andrew says:

                sure , you keep smokin that stuff , you just get smarter an smarter

            2. kevin says:

              A real Democrat would never join the GOP for any reason.

          2. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

            You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.

        4. Jeremy says:

          Haha. Folks, Bloomberg started out as a Democrat, became a Republican in 2001 and then became an Independent in 2007. He switches that letter in the hypotheses to whatever he thinks will get him elected. In any case, the currently “Independent” mayor has never been the slightest bit conservative.

          1. Jeremy says:

            Obviously, I meant “parentheses” and not “hypotheses.”

            1. RickPick says:

              Hypotheses almost works there, actually.

        5. Brian says:

          Repubs aren’t for lack of charity but rather, they are against the governmental redistribution of wealth. Conservative values include charity. Restricting others from being charitable is a liberal, progressive ideology. The idea is to make people into something of your choosing rather than what they choose. It is up to the citizens to elect responsible officials rather than inconsiderate idiots. There are phony politicians in both parties, but the idea of the mother state is definitely not republican. Go read your history and learn some common sense.

          1. Morality says:

            No, it is a conservative ideology. Conservatism is the preservation of the power structure; conservatives have very often supported big government when it suited them, the Defense Department and the Patriot Act and the Meese Commission being recent examples.

            Learn history. Learn about Burke. Learn about Mussolini. Learn about Taft. Learn about Reagan and Thatcher. All supported big government for things they liked, and giving money to businesses, like Bloomberg. All conservatives.

            1. Steve says:

              You’re truly an idiot.

            2. brian1024 says:

              You mention learning history… Historically the US government was small. Conservatism strives to maintain / go back to those times among other things. The conservative ideology has been highjacked by some big government republicans who are far from fiscally conservative and only claim to be conservative when few of them are by any stretch of the imagination. A true conservative would see the patriot act as a gross violation of their civil rights. I’m unsure as to whether you are calling Mussolini a conservative, but if you are, that alone would void your claims… He was a fascist figure who was against all that Americans are and should stand for. He allied himself with the Nazis who also did not represent a conservative ideology. You mention people in history to learn when they themselves are not the talking points. The subject matter you mentioned was conservatism, but you failed to mention how I was wrong. You went on to mention individuals rather than the actual tenets of true conservatism. You mentioned radical changes and then claim that they represent conservatives who support no change or slow change. Conservatives believe in the constitution as it was intended, not as it is now interpreted. Just like the modern day Democratic party has strayed from its view, the Republicans have strayed as well. Also, if I recall the largely democratic stimulus package gave an unprecedented amount of money to businesses rather than your false claims of “all conservatives give money to businesses”. There are some republicans who have given certain industries tax breaks, etc, but these are not true conservatives. The thing is conservatism is an ideal. The republican party, while it has historically been conservative, has strayed from the ideal but maintained the illusion that they were still abiding by its principles. Just because you call something conservatism doesn’t make it true. Those who call themselves Democrats and Republicans are not lying because they are from the party, although the two parties values have changed drastically over the course of American history. One more thing: when you advise someone to learn something, A-make it 100% relevant and B-know about it yourself and how they actually relate to the issue under discussion.

            3. Dino says:

              Yes, learn history. All of you. This thread is exactly what’s wrong with the web: any dummy can make up whatever garbage suits him/her, and post it out here where even less intelligent people take it up as if it were scientific fact.

      2. Claire Messing says:

        “Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

        Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.”

        This is quoted from an article by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times, Dec. 20, 2008.

        1. Tyson says:

          What does this have to do with anything? At all?

          1. aDelphinium says:

            Exactly. Looks like a diversionary tactic.

            1. Acid Reflux says:

              Of course it’s relevant. Conservatives believe in doing right. Liberals believe in voting democratic so that they can do what they want without feeling guilty about it. The richest have trended left for more than 20 years because in exchange for anti-rich rhetoric (which goes no where), they get to rob the rest of us to make themselves rich. Obamacare waivers, loan guaranties for fraudulent companies, take your pick. They just love to push people around, which is why Mayor Bloomberg would rather that homeless people starve than that they don’t eat the dictated cuisine. Clare is pointing out the difference between being a good person and being a politically correct one. Looks like you two guys flunk the test.

        2. James says:

          That isn’t surprising. Conservatives keep money amongst themselves, and are in the best position financially therefore to give to charity.

          Conservatives have more money, period. So, yeah, they give more. I do not see how this is insightful in any way, shape or form, however.

          1. Fabius says:

            given that liberals are actually on average, wealthier, no. In fact those studies controlled for income, and it’s still not the case. Liberals just think that charity can be channeled through transfer payments from the government. Conservatives are actually practicing what they preach.

            1. MarleneElyse says:

              Ronald Reagan completed the largest distribution of wealth in our country’s history. Why is it that you don’t notice if it goes from poor to rich? I can give many examples where conservatives dont practice what they preach. Here is an example: ” The poor should be taken care of by charity and not the govt” But now charity is being blocked? Absurd and you know it.

              1. Stephen says:

                Bloomberg is not a conservative, you fool! What conservative would think they should order people what to eat? He’s an authoritarian leftist! There are certainly more extreme, but authoritarian he is.

                1. Rod Flash says:

                  “What conservative would think they should order people what to eat?”

                  Um, most of them? Obviously not a true conservative, but pretty much any neo-conservative politician. That’s the problem we have. Liberals are liberal (except about imperialistic war decisions), and conservatives are selectively liberal and occasionally conservative when it matches their personal choices. I’m certainly not defending Commandant Bloomberg, but the problems in the US aren’t going to fixed by voting for a party. Sadly, there are too few honorable people to choose from in politics.

                  1. LB says:

                    Let’s not forget that in the ’80’s Reagan condoned ketchup as being a vegetable in school lunches. And yes, conservatives on a whole are are much busier with other issues like what I can and cannot do with my entire body.

                    1. Cowcharge says:

                      Foods made of tomato paste (including ketchup) add years to your life.

              2. Joe says:

                Nope, Reagan’s tax policies were revenue neutral. He lowered the brackets but increased the types of income that were taxable and removed many deductions.

                The myth of Reagan cutting taxes has been abused by both Conservatives and Liberals for years.

          2. Jacob says:

            Actually, wealthier people often give less as a percentage. But anyway, In terms of percentage of wealth, conservatives give far more, and that is very relevant. This is not dollars, this is percentages.

        3. Martha Sherwood says:

          One reason is that regular churchgoers are more likely to be conservative and donations to churches, including those that cover operating expenses as well as the work churches do with the less fortunate, are donations to nonprofits.Another is that people tend to become more conservative with age, and also to have more discretionary income to give to charitable causes.

        4. Michael O'Brian says:

          since most churches are non profit organizations this stat makes perfect sense. but there’s a big difference between donating food to a shelter or tithing at a mega church.

        5. EconProf says:

          A Charity Navigator study followed up on Brooks. The majority of those donations (can’t recall the percentage, but it was somewhere shy of 50%) were made to religious institutions (an even larger percentage of that percentage was made to a single religious institution, ie, a church). And while many good things go on in the philanthropy wings of religious institutions, that money also goes to that church’s steering committee for the new basketball court, the new organ, the congregation’s mission trip to build a sister church in Honduras. In other words, a significant portion of Conservative charitable dollars benefit the constituency of which they are a part.

          That same survey listed the majority benefactors of Liberal donations: disease-related charities (cancer, AIDS, etc.), food aid in third world countries, and microlending institutions in underdeveloped areas.

          In short, don’t assume that “charitable” and “self-serving” are mutually exclusive. There are dozens of reasons for these two stats, which is not to say that Conservatives or Liberals are this, that, or the other. It does indicate that one’s political/social/religious orientation affects our construct of “philanthropy.”

        6. CryoAnon says:

          While conservatives give to charities which use up most of their funds for promotion, salary’s, etc. Liberals are actually feeding the homeless.

          1. Bohemond says:

            It’s absolutely amazing the bizarre things liberals believe.

            Who runs most of the soup kitchens and food banks? Why, churches and synagogues- those evil, selfish conservatives. Liberals figure a vote for the welfare system has their “compassion” covered. “Hey, I gave at the voting booth!”

            But then, who gives the roughly $1 billion per year raked in by completely non-poor-helping Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund? Oh, yes. Not to mention the penchant of wealthy liberals to give generously to the New York Philharmonic and the Metropolitan Opera.

          2. Dino says:

            Sorry, friend. One would be hard pressed to find somebody more conservative than I am, but I ran a small homeless shelter in my parish church until Mike put us out of business (“small operations are not cost effective”). Now I put my big old American car (better MPG and less emissions than a hybrid) to good use by loading it up at WalMart and stocking our church food pantry…well, at least that’s what I did until now. Granted,fresh food is better than canned stuff, but the logistics of distribution are against running a Whole Foods in the church basement. I used to accuse Mike of taking a “Let them eat cake” position; now he won’t even let the poor have the crumbs! This is how we end homelessness: by eliminating the homeless. Who’s next on Mike’s radar?

        7. kevin says:

          That data is misleading. It only shows that conservatives claim more in deductions for charitable contributions, not that they give more.

      3. Ed says:

        Greedy Oil Plutocrats??? CNN Money had an article last year (April 25, 2011) that showed that 43% of the oil stocks are owned by retirement funds and pensions; 23% by individual investors, 30% by mutual funds, 5% by institutional investors but only 1.5% by corporate officers.

        1. some guy says:

          1.5% of $500 billion, divided betwen at best a hundred or so execs, is no small fortune.

          More smoke and mirrors from the far right noise machine. Try again.

          1. Bohemond says:

            Ed, Don’t bother. Some Guy’ds innumeracy is an object lesson in how numerical arguments go right over lib’s pointy little heads.

            1. Adam says:

              Innumeracy? Say for example, providing “statistics ” that add up to 102.5%?

              1. Pam says:

                hahaha, Adam….funny how you call them out on THEIR incorrect statements and they disappear. haha. Well done.

      4. Andy says:

        Yeah, the whole point of government redistribution of wealth is an attempt to make private religious charitable organizations obsolete, and manipulate the masses to seek salvation from politicians rather than God. Most certainly the communists have tapped right into the consciences of the bitter, envious, spiteful and self-absorbed dictators and free-loaders, convincing them throughout their public-schooling that they are helpless victims and those ‘evil’ Republicans want them to actually ‘work’ for a living.

      5. Ippon Kid says:

        If you Bloomburg back as thje lib that he trully is you can have him . How we got stuck with him we will never know .

      6. Bind says:

        Bloomberg is a liberal Democrat you ass!

      7. Sustainabilly says:

        Ral, you poor brainwashed moron. Dems , Rebubs, are all the same. You people who insist on placing blame on one administration are duped. You keep rooting for your side like they are any different. Bush , Obama , Clinton , they all have the same masters.They are selling us down the river and your all too willing to hand them the paddles. Wake up. This country , the World for that matter is controlled by a powerful elite , the “man behind the curtain” Bloomberg is an unwitting participant in a game he doesn’t even know the rules of.

      8. Brian says:

        Self-respecting conservatives aren’t for the redistribution of wealth… Charity is supossed to be just that… CHARITY! When people have money or time left over, they can donate it. When they don’t have the extra time and money, or just plain don’t want to help someone, they should not be required to give away their stuff. People like you advocate an entitlement society where people feel like they are owed for other’s accomplishments. If I’m a failure, then I’m a failure. No one is obligated to help me except perhaps my immediate family.

      9. Joseph Crawford says:

        Occupy much? Why work hard to become rich when you can sit on your butt and reap the rewards? Redistribution is wrong, stupid, and lazy.

      10. Jackie Hall says:

        I’m very middle class I am completely against “redistributing” wealth as you say, from the rich to the poor. If a person has earned that money, it is not the right of our government to give it to someone else. Rule number one, life isn’t fair. Rule number two, I don’t expect anyone to pay my way. Why should anyone else be entitled to another person’s money?

        1. Pam says:

          BUT if someone wants to give to the less fortunate, why should his perfectly good gift go to waste?

    2. Carol Ramsey says:

      If the issue is not being able to give the food directly to the food pantries, how about giving it directly to the NYC Food Bank? They can then give it to pantries, shelters and soup kitchens. There are also Food Shares through organizations like “Food Not Bombs”, just a google away. Blumberg is obviously very disconnected, so we need to go around these types, we can and do!! WHERE THERE’S A WILL THERE IS A WAY.

      1. chuck says:

        Not anymore apparently

    3. Will says:

      Yeah, nothing says “redistributing wealth” like promoting gentrification and driving anybody who doesn’t pull in at least six figures out of the city.

      Teabaggers are the biggest ldiots alive.

      1. Bohemond says:

        “Idiots,” says the sort of person who thinks namecalling is debate— and doesn’t seem to have any concept of what taxes and rent control have done to make NY untenable for the middle class.

        Ah, the psychopathology of the lefty mind is truly fscinating.

        1. randeesavage says:

          Don’t pin the Mayor with no soul on the lefty’s!

          1. William says:

            NYC rent control is what keeps this city viable – has kept the middle class
            in the city all these decades.

            1. Bohemond says:

              Wow. Just wow. There’s no talking sense to a person capable of believing that.

    4. randeesavage says:

      the burger’s living on a $1 salary, goes t’showya, he’s doing a louzy job.

    5. tara says:

      that’s it. get rid of bloomberg STAT. they don’t care about the homeless’ health when it’s below zero outside and the police chase them out of the train station, but all of a sudden he’s concerned about their salt intake!!! GTFOOH . down with bloomberg and his goons for the better of NYC

    1. Francesca says:

      Awesome! I’ve signed and shared it

    2. Jeffrey says:

      Signed and shared.

    3. Rob Ostrander says:

      I am also upset by Bloomberg’s restrictions on food donations. I intended to sign your petition, until I read it. I’d like to offer some constructive criticism In more than one way, your petition is written so as to guarantee that it will not be taken seriously. 2 misspellings in 41/2 lines immediately make it seem carelessly written. Nowhere is there a clear, full description of the policy the petition opposes. The phrase “we, ourselves” ought to be eliminated. Some of the signers of a petition like this might become homeless, have been homeless or be homeless. The entire petition is filled with language meant to stir the emotions and reads more like a rant than a reasonable objection to a mistaken policy.

  2. Summer says:

    You know we get these rich privileged assholes that have never had a problem except their first world problems like ‘I can’t believe homosexuals are getting married’ and for whatever reason people think it’s a great idea to put them in office. Welcome to the American dream.

  3. familyhunter says:

    So I guess it makes more sense to throw food out, than give it to people that need it and appreciate it, regardless of the nutriional value. Maybe it should be placed in a clean trash can outside the door, and then it would be okay for them to dig through the trash to eat. What a sad comment to make about the priorities of humankind.

    1. Joel Pirard says:

      EXACTLY The food comes from a good place, but they want to make sure that the homeless have safe wholesome nutrition while they sleep under a bridge. Ridiculous! Next they’ll be banning soup kitchens!

      1. EMBrown says:

        They are effectively banning soup kitchens with this edict. The city cannot possibly monitor all donated food. Ergo, trash it. No food, no soup kitchens.

  4. Down With Stupid People says:

    You’re an ass.

  5. Bill Finn / Mishawaka, IN says:

    Why not just sell all the bagels to the homeless center for 1 cent? That eliminates any “free” donations. It also eliminates Bloomberg’s ability to control the situation.

    1. truthwhip says:

      Best comment here! This is exactly how to get around Bloomberg’s stupidity and control freakishness. Pay in pennies. People who pick up free food donations pay for it with a penny. Hand each homeless person a penny as they enter the room where the shelter feeds people and allow them to pay for their meal with it.

    2. Carol Ramsey says:

      Sounds good Mr. Finn!!

  6. Mann says:

    Another shot in the class war. Many in the middle-class will embrace this, because they have no sympathy for people who are less fortunate.

  7. Cynthia says:

    I am so SICK of bureaucrats telling the rest of us what is in our best interests. Clearly, Bloomberg as mayor is not in the best interests of the underprivileged in NYC. So glad I don’t live there.

  8. Amused but not misled says:

    The despot midget knows all YET AGAIN.

    At least they will starve after having eatten healthy food.

    This is the same crackpot that criminalizes beer in parks, yet promotes fine aged red wine in that same park. What a phoney

    He is out of touch on millionaire mountain again

  9. Tight Wad says:

    Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
    Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
    Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
    Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
    Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

    1. Disgusted says:

      Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish – I don’t think your quotes will persuade. He also is doing everything in his power to keep this city only for the wealthy – especially the good ole boys down in financial district that made him a billionaire and will use his own personal army (as HE calls the NYPD openly) to brutalize anyone who wants to bring attention to their illegal and immoral activities. The man makes my sick more and more every day and I hope the occupy movement does come back in the spring because I have had it – I’m going to join them.

      1. Ken R says:

        The Occupy movement would have more validity and credibility if it realized that it isn’t just corrupt, rich elitists, rich corporations, corrupt financial institutions, etc. that cause the problems; and if it realized that the solutions cannot come through the government. The problem is the collusion between the government and its rich cronies – both Democrats and Republicans.

        Politicians and government officials have the power to influence legislation and regulations, and enforce laws in ways that favor their rich benefactors. They’ve been doing it in the U.S. for more than 200 years, and even longer in Europe. As long as politicians have that power they will always have plenty of rich benefactors. The solution is to take away power from the government until the politicians no longer have anything to sell to their rich friends.

        The role of the government should be to defend against foreign invaders, suppress the use of violence and coercion, punish fraud and enforce contracts, and that’s all. Two rules should govern our conduct: 1) Do whatever you have agreed to do; 2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property. — In other words: You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet; You shall not bear false witness; Do not do to others what you do not want done to you. Beyond that we should all be free to do whatever we want, including feeding the homeless to our heart’s content, in whatever way we think is best, regardless of what anyone else may think is a better way.

        Generous people in New York, both liberal and conservative, could give to the poor to their heart’s content, no matter what Bloomberg, the bureaucrats and their rich cronies think about it, if Bloomberg and his bureaucrats did not have the power to use the police, guns, courts and jails of the government to force good people into submission.

        We don’t need the government to organize, regulate and rule our lives. We can do that ourselves. We need more freedom.

        1. Governments Suppress Freedom says:

          You make good points and people are finally waking up an organizing, but not organizing well. As long as there are governments, personal rights and equality will constantly be infringed upon.

    2. Pam says:

      Keep RELIGION OUT OF IT!!!! Separation of Church and State….this is not a religious issue!!

  10. Paul says:

    This is simply insane.

  11. carl says:

    Thank GOD I live in Jersey, away from the kingdom of King Michael. I feel bad for you New Yorkers. You just kNOW this egomaniacal fool is going to run again because he thinks he can do the job better than anyone else. I think its HILARIOUS how he thinks he has to stick his nose into EVERYTHING. I would laugh at his idiocy if I wasn’t so busy sticking pins into my Mayor Moneybags voodoo doll!

  12. Mike says:

    I think that Bloomberg should be called The Soup Nazi after the character from Seinfeld.

    1. Michael Schwade says:

      How about The Bagel Nazi?

  13. Marsha Abelman says:

    This is one of the MOST misguided decisions I have ever heard. Mayor: reconsider this! The hungry need food, not supervision of their salt intake!!

    1. Governments Suppress Freedom says:

      He’ll pick on anyone as long as they’re not rich.

  14. k kelly says:

    when the homeless hit the streets after visiting a food center they’ll be forced to hit the pails. which is worse, rotten food or fresh salty, sugary and fattening food? silly beyond silly, ridiculous beyond ridiculous and more than just a little cruel and callous.

  15. Rich says:

    You voted for this dummy so you now are ruled by this dummy. Never vote for a candidate that has money> They think on a different level.

    1. Disgusted says:

      not me (she says proudly!). I voted Mark Greene

      1. Brandon Slattery says:

        I didn’t vote for either, because Greene’s race-baiting of Ferrer was shameful!

  16. Leslie says:

    Now, mayor nanny will guilt those that donate to lower the salt and other things that are bad, in the food they donate. Meaning, this is bloomies way to gain control over all food in NYC.

  17. Amy says:

    Seriously??? ANY food is better than no food, and as long as it isn’t spoiled or moldy, why deny hungry people a free meal? If you want to analyze the nutritional value, take 1 bagel to a lab, but let the people eat the rest of them. This is the most ridiculous ban I’ve ever heard of. I can understand rejecting tainted meat or something, but bagels? Come on!

  18. Melanie says:

    Because eating garbage is better….

    1. Amused but not misled says:

      New NYC law:
      MUST post grams of grams fat and caloric content on all NYC trash cans.

      This guy is truly out of touch with reality. DIllusional.

  19. Pearce says:

    That’s not very Christian of you Mayor Bloomberg. Recall this so called “Mayor” already New York.

    1. Jeffrey says:

      He’s not Christian, he’s Jewish. Of course, this goes against the Torah as well.

      1. Ricky says:

        More to the point, it goes against the teachings of his branch of the religion (which considers the Torah to have been “inspired” by G-d and written by people). What the heck is Bloomberg thinking?

      2. Ricky says:

        More to the point, it goes against the teachings of his branch of the religion (which considers the Torah to have been “inspired” by G-d and written by people). What the heck is Bloomberg thinking?

  20. Byron W says:

    “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” — Thomas Jefferson

  21. Karma Tinfoil says:

    “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint, but when I ask why the poor are hungry, they call me a communist.” – Dom Helder Camara

  22. cogit8able says:

    In a diet that is deficient an item or two that has an over abundance of fat or salt is not going to cause harm. Receiving charitable donations is voluntary if the homeless as
    adults are willing to eat it , it is not the mayors job to block them.Matthew 25:41-47
    New International Version (NIV)
    41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

  23. Marcia Brown Castro says:

    So it is better that they go without food than to have a little extra salt or sugar? GET REAL!!l! How much do you think these people are concerned about their cholesterol or whatever problem they may have? Most can’t afford to see a doctor, or buy any extra food ,let alone healthy food! All I can say is Karma is a B*^#~.

  24. Rae says:

    This is a joke, right? Like when I first started babysitting and woke up to Saturday NIght Live for the first time, and thought I was trapped in a strange dream? Right?

  25. Samantha says:

    I don’t think you understand what socialism is.

  26. Gabriel says:

    You voted him in, now shut up and put up!

    1. Commonsense says:

      Ignorance is bliss. NOT EVERYONE VOTED HIM IN. Term limits were overturned. He should never have been allowed to run for a third term in the first place. Hipsters and the wealthy voted him in.

    2. Cassie Vance says:

      I didn’t vote for him. Even if I had, I certainly would not have approved of this crap! And I didn’t vote for the repeal of term limits either.

      1. Amused but not misled says:

        No one voted for repeal of term limits. The hypocrites gave it to themselves.

        1. Disgusted says:

          Remember Christine Quinn was who gave him the 3rd term opportunity – so when she runs for mayor herself – she has a lot to answer for.

  27. erica says:

    First of all, I love how they show a shot of Bloomberg eating a nice meal and wiping his mouth with a silk napkin during this video.

    Second of all, I don’t think he deserves all the hate. He is quite rich, and therefore doesn’t see the troubles that homeless people have. Have you ever heard of the meme “First World Problems?” that’s what this is. He’s stuck in a first world mentality, when there are people in his city stuck in a near third-world situation.

    He needs to come off his high horse, and see the people for their problems.

    1. Thomas Payne says:

      No, he knows exactly what he’s doing. Trying to force the homeless to go elsewhere. That’s his “first world mentality” at work.B

      1. erica says:

        Really? Which first world are you living in? Because the one I’m living in sure doesn’t try to hurt less lucky people. It is the work of ignorance.

      2. Jen says:

        This is exactly correct. It’s the same thing that Giulani did, but without the thugs.

    2. Pam says:

      IF he can’t get the right mentality he doesn’t deserve to be mayor. Money shouldn’t automatically get him in office. Unfortunately, these days it seems that that’s all it takes. 🙁

  28. Angry says:


    1. j says:

      We actually did look into having him recalled because he was continuously going after my husband’s line of business for awhile. In NYC there is no way to recall a mayor so unfortunately we’re stuck with him no matter what. Which is how hes able to just do whatever he wants now. No one can recall him and after his third term nonsense hes not going to get a fourth that he has to coddle us for a reelection.

  29. Lyn says:

    The Bloomburger’s full of it, and says it all better than anyone can for himself.

  30. Lou says:

    Mr. Mayor, shame on you.

    1. margo d says:

      Certainly seems Mayor Bloomberg and/or his administration is completelyout of touch on this issue.

  31. terri says:

    Ideology – of ANY stripe – eventually hurts instead of helps. How about some common sense and wisdom?

  32. aron pieman kay says:

    mayor bloomberg is a shanda for the goyim…that runt is a disgrace to the jewish people!!! he may as well serve hitler and his minions better

    1. GELT STIMPT says:

      For starters, as a dietitian for the inmates at all the concentration camps.

    2. artisanrox says:

      Bloomberg = total treif

      1. Ricky says:

        chillul Hashem, true that.

  33. Rhonda says:

    I can not believe what I am reading…has he not read the physical health data regarding the homeless population? Eating Bagels are the least of their worries! It’s the mental illness, liver-kidney disease, Hep C and LACK of Health Care and Food that are killing them, just Being homelss takes 25 yrs off of their lives…get a clue man, better yet Get a Heart!

  34. robbie says:

    bloomberg is real a socialist and i predict he will change the law to try and run for a 4th term , he has so much wealth that he has nothing in common with any of us New Yorkers in the outer boroughs.

  35. robbie says:

    bloomberg plans to run again in 2013 for 16 years as mayor, bloomberg is out of touch with average New Yorkers, to wealthy to have any thing in common with us. he would rather people starve, plus his cops under kelly stormed into a young mans home in the bronx and murdered him why is not the press reminding him of this everday. he should ask the queen to appoint him governor of bermuda since that is where he belongs with his million dollar home down there

    1. Governments Suppress Freedom says:

      Where did you find out he wants to run again? If this is true, he needs to be stopped!

  36. Joyce Careswell Gaglione says:

    I can remember when I worked in corporations, and we’d have these big, lavish breakfast or lunch meetings. We’d call City Harvest to pick up all the untouched, extra sandwiches, bagels, fruit, whatever was all right to donate. The feedback was positive, and the recipients were grateful. What about God’s Love We Deliver, and their efforts to bring boxed meals to people who cannot leave their homes, due to severe illness? A little foresight could have preempted this obviously glaring mistake. Food without optimal nutrition standards is better than no food. It’s a no-brainer.

  37. pat martin says:

    Rich, pig, dictator thug.

  38. B says:

    Actually, many caterers will not allow you to take home “to-go” trays for same reason. Once the food leaves the original food handler, there is a liability. If it is not a sealed item, and is stored at the wrong temperature who is responsible. It is really sad but it is also a safety measure.

    1. GELT STIMPT says:

      But the homeless, are sealed fate joker

    2. Amy says:

      But bagels can be stored safely at room temperature. There’s not much risk involved…

    3. Brock says:

      the homeless service has been delivering food for years. They are not feeding bad food.

    4. Dee says:

      There is something called the Good Samaritan Law which absolves caterers or people donating of this responsibility.

  39. Ibn Insha says:

    That is what happens when we want government to help us, give us and hold our hand and guide us every step of the way. Now the government has become so big that it is found every where, even in our kitchens and bed rooms. It even tells us how to be generous or stop us from being generous. If we, the voters, don’t care of this problem now the future generations will face even more challenges from government and we will not be doing them any favor. The future generations will remember us as evil.

    1. Thomas Payne says:

      NYC government is not “THE government.” It’s a government. There are thousands of governments in America, as different from each other as night and day. This comment is ridiculous on its face and it leads to no solution to the problem, only ignorant bitching.

  40. wootendw says:

    Salt, especially iodized salt, is the leading source of iodine in the body. And iodine deficiency is the world’s leading cause of preventable mental retardation. Mr. Bloomberg is going to turn New York into a city of retards if he keeps trying to stop them from getting iodine via banning salt.

  41. Traveler says:

    It helps to reduce the homeless population..Starve them to deatrh is his goal. They cannot vote for him, so he doesn’t care. Just like Obummer

  42. KATRICE BRYSON says:


    1. Angie says:

      If there is a God he needs to slap Bloomberg and his cronies upside the head and let them experience the same thing many of us deal with. Homelessness, starvation etc.

  43. wombat1417 says:

    Just wait until he decides he wants a FOURTH term….

  44. Ron says:

    Where I live they just past a law that you can not give no food to the homeless unless you have a food permit, If you get caught it is up to a 10,000 dollar fine

    1. Amy says:

      That’s absurd! Can you take donations to a food bank at least?

  45. sharon wolff says:

    Oh good heavens. Mr Bloomberg, you are the Mayor of NYC. You are not the food police. Why are you preventing homeless people from eating food? Granted YOU Feel It Isn’t Healthy for them, which is nice. However Are You going to prepare a meal for them, or, maybe provide leftovers from one of your catered affairs? Mr Bloomberg, the gentleman that is providing the food is Doing a Mitzvah, (remember you are Jewish) is a Good Deed. Mr Bloomberg, unless these food donations are costing The City of NY any moeny, which it isn’t, do not prevent this. You are a Mayor, you need to support PC Kelly, enforce laws, protect the people of your city, Do Not Play Food Big Brother.

  46. MAYOR MIKE IS A POS says:


  47. John says:

    What did Michael Bloomberg’s mother do to him to make him this way?

  48. dtmck64 says:

    Bloomberg needs to go, he’s been Hizzoner too long and has become delusional…

    So, a homeless person that probably eats out of garbage cans and dumpsters just for solid food, and maybe took in 600 calories in a week; and people who want to donate starches and vegetables can’t bcause of Dommberg’s food nazi’s? The guy has got to go…

    1. Rocco says:

      “Hizzoner” is the earned title of mayor Ed Koch and his alone. Bloomy is NOT Hizzonor. I wish people would stop throwing that title around. It belongs to Ed Koch.

      1. Rhiannon says:

        Uhh, actually that title started with Fiorella LGuardia.

        1. steward says:

          Actually, earlier than that. It was applied to James “Jimmy” Walker by Walter Winchell in 1928. It’s also been used in other cities for their mayors – it didn’t even start in NYC. (Source: OED)

Leave a Reply to Pearce Cancel reply