Who said this or inferred this?

“Yes, when the children of those currently serving in the military are invited to the White House,
they should be served baloney sandwiches.”

I am sincerely ineterested in learning more about this 8 Dec. dinner for childtren of military in the White house, Is it the one that started at 10:01 AM?

Thanks

It would be great if “the children of those currently serving in the military are invited to the White House” would be served that fantastic White House Holiday Menu., It would be even greater if those currently serving so heroically in the armed forces of our country would be invited to the White House and served that great White House Holiday menu. Can you assure us that they in fact will be invited? Or will those invited perhaps, just perhaps, be a bunch of fat cat politicians, lobbyists, big-time donors, foreign diplomatic corps, Bush-supporters, cronies and relatives? Perhaps some homelss people??? Am I being too cynical? You betcha–not!

I hope you are so prolific in posting the menu and expenses of the Obama administration.

Honestly, I don't even want to be discussing this issue because it is thin gruel.

When the White House spends an inordinate amount of money flying in the flesh of some endangered species,
then by all means post that information.

What you have here is American agricultural products being prepared by American chefs and served by American workers.

We discuss this but have no interest in the billion plus dollars in subsidies garnered by wealthy sugar producers.
The sugar subsidy program costs American consumers between $1 and $2 billion dollars annually in higher prices for sugar and a vast array of products that contain it, while also costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year in direct payments to sugar producers.
Since the domestic price for sugar is artificially maintained above world levels, American jobs are sent overseas because domestic manufacturers that use sugar cannot compete with foreign manufacturers that have a lower input cost.
You can also add in the government incentivized environmental degradation of the Everglades and the possible contribution to obesity from the increased use of cheaper high fructose corn syrup. (There is some debate about the link between HFCS and obesity, but there is no debate that above world market sugar prices lead to the increased domestic use of HFCS.)

All of this for an industry that accounts for less than 1% of annual US agricultural production and which is known for horrid labor practices.

It only took Big Sugar $1.5 million in campaign contribution to garner their billion plus in subsidies.
This is a problem. The White House menu – not so much.

Political hackery that lowers the level of debate in this country and distracts from larger more important issues.
I blame the media.