If society has "issues" with food stamps for poor people, there IS a better way

[SoCalDem]

I get so tired of hearing people beating up poor people over what they eat and how they are fat because they are lazy, & dumb & they eat bad food..

Here's the truth..

Starch & processed foods fill up hungry bellies.

If your utilities are always on the verge of being turned off, you tend to buy stuff that requires little cooking/refrigeration.

If you are semi-homeless most of the time, you tend to buy food wherever you are at the time..(convenience stores don't have a lot of fresh foods)

Where poor people tend to live, there are not many Trader Joes, Whole Foods, or any other major supermarket, for that matter.

Our country USED to give away a LOT of free food..actual food..

powdered eggs
butter
cheese
flour
sugar
beans
rice

Towns had distribution centers that stored and gave this food out to people, but it got easier to just sell/donate the surplus to the third world, and give our own poor people little play-money dollars and send them to their local corporate stores.

It's no mystery that many people do not make good food choices.. People who have a limited income ALWAYS try to get the most QUANTITY..It's a fact of life..and starchy processed foods are cheaper.

If we really want to tend to their nutrition, we would make food stamps usable for ONLY certain foods. Is it a surprise WHY soda pop & other junk foods are "allowable food" :eyes: ? CokePepsi ™ would not have it any other way...nor would Hershey™, or Frito-Lays™, or any of the other junk-food giants.

If your life and your kids' lives totally SUCK, is it surprising that Moms would try to give them what few pleasures she can? "Fun food" once a month (when she has money & stamps) may be the only way she can make them feel "normal"..at least for the few days the goodies last..

Remember too, that many of these Moms are not all that educated (school-learning, at least)..and if you went to a school with three soda/snack machines at the end of every hallway, it's not likely that there was much actual teaching about health & nutrition going on there.

Our society has also dictated that "poor Moms" must NOT be "lazy"..so they MUST work.. Working moms with adolescent or older children will HAVE to buy prepared foods so the kids can "fend for themselves" while she's cleaning office toilets at 9 PM or riding buses from one job to the next as they get home from school. If she made them actually cook, and someone got burned and 911 was called, she would be labeled the "worst Mother on the planet", and would probably lose her kids to foster care.

Any woman who has ever had kids, knows how they always forage after school and will eat anything that's remotely edible..They are perfectly willing to accept the tongue-lashing... LATER when Mom finds out they chugged a gallon of milk that needed to last a whole week...or that they ate ALL the cereal for a snack.. the cereal that should have lasted 3 more days..

If she is not THERE to see what they eat, and to TELL them NO, they WILL eat whatever they want.. Kids are just like that..

Kids KNOW that they are poor, but most parents try to shield their kids from knowing just HOW poor they really are.. if they see their Mom working 3 jobs, and AT work for 50 hrs+ a week, it's not hard to believe that they might think she DOES have "more money"..

If we really "cared" about what poor people eat, we would just expand the WIC program, and do away with food stamps altogether.

WIC coupons are for specific and nutritious foods..

Milk
Cheese
Eggs
Dried Beans, Peas and Lentils
Peanut Butter
Unsweetened Cereal (includes oatmeal & cream of wheat)
Juice
Carrots and Canned Tuna

The program COULD be easily expanded to include things like :

tomatoes
potatoes (bagged only)...and yams/sweet potatoes
turnips
fresh fruit (bagged fruit..like oranges/apples/grapefruit)
store brand whole wheat breads
store brand canned vegetables (plain veggies)
whole chickens
frozen turkeys (whole ones)
frozen fish fillets (plain uncooked..no shrimp..lobster etc)
store brand yogurt/cottage cheese (no additives..candy crumbles,fruit etc)
ground beef/turkey/pork, stew meat,round steak(un-tenderized), chuck steak/roasts

Poor people would get more bang-for-their-buck, but do you notice who gets "left out"??

Corporate McJunkfood makers... Think they don't LOVE food stamps just the way they ARE??

Poor people are their best patsies...chumps....marks.... customers..


edited to add:

I would also like to see vouchers for the stuff that we ALL need.....

stuff like :

soap
laundry detergent
toilet paper
shampoo
"ladies" monthly stuff
and yes..even condoms

for all but the condoms, there's no reason why vouchers for store brands of the items listed, could not be given to poor people..

but then I am a "commie-pinko" bleeding heart softie

[VP505]

1. Well said!

Here the schools provide breakfast and lunch for lower income kids, that goes a long way to help them eat every day. They also have a free lunch program during the summer months at most of the city parks so the kids can get at least one meal during the week.

[SoCalDem]

3. I know that schools feed kids, but some of the "food" at schools

is junk these days..

Most of it's fried and/or greasy pre-prepared stuff..

but I guess it;s better than nothing in your belly :(

[Ilsa]

106. Actually, alot of the food in my son's school is so "healthy" but unseasoned

that it tastes like cardboard. They are afraid to make anything spicy or interesting, and since they are cooking in bulk, vegetables are overcooked, meats are baked, tasteless, heated in an oven or microwave. You wouldn't believe how much food gets thrown away because it has nothing appealing about it. You have to be starving to manage to swallow it.

[truedelphi]

140. I've long predicted that the healthier the school menu

Appears to be, the more likely any kid able to walk will be at the local Taco Bell.

I remember being proud of myself for fixing my 4th grade son a hummus sandwich and carrot sticks and apple pieces. Or veggie burgers and raisins.

It took me about two months before I realized he always traded! And of course, not for a healthier meal combo.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

169. At our highschool, everyday we have: Pizza, fries, hamburgers, and chicken sandwiches

all of which are very greasy. We have specials (available 3-4 times a month) that are like ribs, tacos, bacon burgers, etc.

Wraps, salads and subs are also available. The catch? They're $2.50-$4.00 while the others are all under $2.00. The salads and wraps don't taste particularly good either.

[MadMaddie]

2. SoCalDem why are you trying to use logic?

:sarcasm:

You are absolutely right but think about it (let's think like the Rethuglican haves? It will be painful...)

Feed the poor unhealthy diets which products made by Corporations it keeps the Corporations in business.

Switch to a healthy diet without fillers and junk....Corporations have no bullshit products to push....their bottom line turns red...and they can't have that.

[SoCalDem]

4. and think of all that diabetes medicine they couldn't sell down the road?

:grr:

[MadMaddie]

215. There ya go.

[kdmorris]

5. I'm not sure I understand what you are advocating

You start out saying that you can understand why people end up buying junk food with food stamps, including a paragraph on why a mom might buy a bag of candy once a month as a treat for children who rarely get it so that they feel normal. You discuss why parents buy processed foods for children who need to make their own dinner.

And then you advocated doing away with the whole thing and disallowing any sort of pleasure in poverty stricken households.

I used to feed three growing daughters on $405 a month, plus whatever I got from WIC and commodities. And I bought good food for them. But, yes, I did...once a month... when the food stamps came and you realized you weren't going to starve to death... buy them some Twinkies or Cupcakes at the Hostess "Day Old" Bread store.

The life of a child growing up in a poverty stricken household is bleak and I will NEVER regret getting them that $1 box of Twinkies to make them feel like they got the same things other kids got. They got enough grief for wearing "other people's clothes".

I think it would be better to try to educate food stamp recipients than to force them to buy only "a few things" that are wholesome and good for them. Because doing away with food stamps and just allowing certain things to be bought, via the WIC program, seems like it punishes everyone, rather than educating the few.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

7. Remember this:

Even umong the putative "liberals", there are still those who would punish the poor for their plight, for verily, they have done something wrong.

And if you ever want to see Liberal Assholery in stark relief, be a fly on the wall when a bunch of Inside-The-Beltway Liberals try to get something constructive done in a coalition formation. More growling and pissing on trees and sniffing of buttholes than a pack of dogs.

[Mike03]

8. I can't speak for the OP poster, but

I think you get it completely. It is a Catch 22 for people who rely on food stamps, and the beneficiaries are the corporations that produce unhealthy products.

Is that a fair statement? I mean, I'm not sure that is what the point is, but it makes sense, doesn't it?

[kdmorris]

14. Yes, that makes sense.

Some of that stuff they make should be illegal. It's not food.

[SoCalDem]

10. I worked for many years in the grocery business and I saw

what people bought. EVERY person who used food stamps ALSO used cash to buy the stuff that was not allowed. All I said in my OP was that there ARE ways to ENSURE that the government-sponsored segments of poor people's food purchases COULD be made to be "nutritious & healthy".

If Moms want to buy the junk foods for her kids occasionally (which we ALL do, whether we admit it or not:)..), they would have to buy it from their "cash only" portion..

There are TWO ways to do it.. restrict food stamps..OR scrap them altogether and expand WIC..

I would also like to see vouchers for the stuff that we ALL need..stuff like :
soap
laundry detergent
toilet paper
shampoo
"ladies" monthly stuff
and yes..even condoms

for all but the condoms, there's no reason why vouchers for store brands of the items listed, could not be given to poor people..

but then I am a "commie-pinko" bleeding heart softie :)

[Mike03]

17. I couldn't agree more

We need to be more honest about the intrinsic nature of human beings, and government's response to needs must be more honest and less fantasmal and judgmental. Is this a fair assessment of what you are saying?

I know what is "good" for me, and I buy what is "good" for me, but I also buy what is not good for me, probably because I hope it will bring me some kind of pleasure, although it rarely does. It is a tough habit to break.

[SoCalDem]

21. That's it exactly.. our government "gives" poor people a few play-money dollars

and then condemns them when they use them to buy unhealthy food..The unhealthy food is also CHEAPER (usually) and makes their "money" less valuable.. Then the same government complains when they end up overweight and unhealthy..:eyes:

If the government wants to help feed them, then it should provide the healthy part of their daily diet..what they buy with their own cash is their own business.

My guess is that if people had enough of the basic, nutritious food, they would eat it.

A hungry kid will eat an apple, or an orange IF the fruit is in the home.. If he/she's hungry, and all there is is junk food, they will eat that too (or instead)..

If WIC or food stamps will buy a bag of apples, at least there would BE apples in the house..even if Mom also buys a bag of Doritos..

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Yes, what we called "PC's" (personal care items) were in constant demand

from street kids. They needed stuff like tampons, socks, underwear, hand sanitizer, condoms, and other stuff that they don't hand out in a chow line.

[kdmorris]

23. I am a "commie-pinko" bleeding heart softie

Well, I know THAT. So am I.

Thank you for the clarification. I really do admire you for trying to find a solution to the problem, because it is VERY unhealthy for people to eat processed non-food. But, I disagree that this should be something that we "do for the poor". Much of America's food supply is made up of crap...processed, frozen, non-nutritious crap. And I agree that something needs to be done about it.

But limiting this to the poor... I don't like it. Because I've been there and life on welfare/food stamps or life as the working poor SUCKS. If you limit these choices that are made for people to just the poor, it really does take something out of life. Not because people should be eating this crap, but because it feels like everyone else gets to and you don't.

Just like most of the rest of your life when your poor. Everyone's child gets to go on the field trip and yours doesn't...because you are poor. Everyone else's kid gets new school clothes, but yours don't...because you are poor. Everyone else pays their electric bill, but you have to sit at the Aid place for 5 hours...because you are poor. Once a year, you get to go through a harrowing, humiliating experience of once again justifying your existence and that of your children... because you are poor.

Everyone treats you like a non-human...because you are poor.

We need to give nutrition education to ALL the poor and require food makers to make REAL "easy" food. Hold the manufacturers responsible for the use of HFCS and trans-fats...things that are just added to our food because it's cheap. I agree that subsidies need to be given for toiletries. When I was on AFDC, I got about $306 a month. I had Section 8 housing, so I had no rent, but I had to pay for the electric and water and other items that were needed. My youngest daughter was potty trained at 16 months because I just didn't have enough money for diapers that month.

Instead of making the solution just another trial for people who have nothing, I think we need to hold corporations responsible for making crap food and improve the health of EVERYONE in the nation.

Obviously, that's just my opinion, which doesn't account for much these days.

[SoCalDem]

27. Teaching us ALL is the best solution, but apparently we are all slow-learners

My "guess" is that manufacturers would get a big-ole wake-up call if all of a sudden, their adulterated crap were UN-subsidized by the food stamp program.. They would suddenly "lose" a lot of customers:evilgrin:.. Maybe that alone might spur them on to eliminate some of the chemi-foods they foist on us all.. :shrug:

We were not super-poor, but I remember how it sucked to get clothes from the "cheap stores", when most of my friends had charge accoounts at "THE stores"..and how I had to work when they were all headed for the lake on Saturdays..

It stays with you..:)

[kdmorris]

30. Well, now.. that is a good point

I doubt corporations would change their ways unless the working poor (who often don't get food stamps) also wasn't buying their crap. A two pronged approach would maybe work best. Maybe we could combine our solutions and really make it hurt them :evilgrin:

I tried to hide how poor we were from my daughters...and seem to have succeeded rather well. When the electricity got cut off for the last two weeks of one month, they remember "playing sleep-over in the living room" with candles and ghost stories and stuff. I remember it as the worst couple of weeks of my life, because I just felt like such a shitty mother.

[juno jones]

182. Thank you, kd and socal

I do not feel so alone right now. Sometimes I am up against 'liberal' middle class people here that are more than willing to bash and blame the poor for who they are. One even claimed that somehow we were not a significant part of the economy. I have been there, am being there, and I hope your situations are better, but I know of which you speak and say, "Solidarity". Thanks.

[kdmorris]

201. I am in a better situation now

I finished computer technical school and with the help of my husband (encouragement), got a pretty good job. The years of living in poverty stay with you though. I still buy things on clearance, at the thrift store, etc. And I live in fear of losing my job and "going back". I just try not to panic about it so that I can actually live my life. And I ALWAYS realize that there were hundreds of people who were in that situation when I was that didn't make it out.

And they are the ones that need solidarity. Every person that freezes to death because they have no home or cannot afford heat, every person who starves to death because they can't buy food, and every person evicted from their home because they didn't have enough money to keep it... they are us. They are our national shame.

[juno jones]

207. A-men.

Glad things are going well. The dint of years has improved things for me slightly as well. After serving a prolonged apprenticeship, I'm finally a specialist in my field (baker at a fine dining restaurant) so am doing better than I used to as a prep/line cook, but I still shop the canned grocery outlet and thrift stores. I don't think I will ever change.

[no name no slogan]

51. WIC and Food Assistance don't serve the same people

Lots of people who receive Food Assistance do not receive WIC, because they are adults without children. Also, not everybody who receives Food Assistance is unemployed or on public assistance-- many of them are working adults who do not make enough money to afford food and rent.

Also, Food Assistance is a program of the Department of Agriculture, while WIC and other welfare programs originate with the Department of Health and Human Services.

[SoCalDem]

64. But.... It "could" be, and maybe it should be n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

129. But then you'd have to call it something else. n/t

[1awake]

73. It's strange to me

sometimes being here. I not to long ago came over from the repub side of the street (matter of months) and I find myself agreeing with much of what is said here. Well.. I guess this will be something for another thread.

In anycase, I totally agree with your post. Items such as those you listed SHOULD already be covered, and it makes no sense not to if someone gives any thought to it at all. In fact, some of it used to be covered back in the day younger people were being used in the CC camps.

[SoCalDem]

77. Welcome to DU.. glad to have you here

There are good ideas on both sides of the aisle.. the bad ones just get trumpeted louder :)

[Zodiak]

144. I swear that your name reminds me of a sensible RWer I used to argue with

on another board. He left because many of my liberal friends were jerks (real hateful)...I left for the same reason.

Ever been to @forumz?

[me b zola]

97. Protein bars

A few years ago I was in line at the grocery store and the woman in front of me was trying to buy a few food items and a few protein bars. She was using foods stamps and when the cashier told her that she owed a small cash balance. When the woman asked why because everything was a food item and noting was cooked/prepared food the cashier told her that the protein bars were considered a dietary supplement and were not covered by food stamps. The woman then told the cashier that she was homeless, that she had no where to prepare food, couldn't keep perishables, and carrying space was limited to the backpack on her back. The cashier appeared to be sympathetic, but couldn't do anything to help her.



I think of that woman from time to time.

[Mike03]

6. Fantastic post. K and R, and NT

[thereismore]

9. We were on WIC for a while. As I started reading your "real foods" list,

I immediately thought: that's just like WIC! Great idea, for the benefit of the nation.

[SoCalDem]

13. Exactly,.. those ARE the WIC foods..(I would expand the list)

The idea that kids only need healthy foods until they are 5 or 6..well that's just plain nuts.. They need it MORE when they are growing and in school :)

[Mike03]

11. This is such a crucial post

It just points to the implicit conspiracy between big agriculture and government. This has been going on for over a hundred years, when we first learned that products like lead and poly vinyl chlorides were carcinogens.

Like Noam Chomsky says, it's a luxury to have the time and opportunity to become an informed person; most people can't afford this luxury, because they are working too hard.

[CrispyQ]

138. I was once an 'informed' snob.

I thought it was due to laziness or apathy that most people were not informed. I was working part time & had lots of time to read internet sites like Common Dreams & DU. Now I work full time & I have a fraction of the time for the internet. I certainly can't do it at work, where I am busy all day. I don't have time in the morning, racing around getting ready for work. And after work, well, hell, I actually like to spend time with my husband, don't ya know?

So I have found that the few minutes of news I get a day comes from CNN & we all know how wretched that is. Since I am aware of the sad state of our media, I make time on the weekend to get caught up. DU's Latest Breaking is a godsend. But here's the thing -- I don't even have children. I wonder how the hell people with full time jobs & kids do it? My guess is that many of them don't & that's why our country is in such a sad state of ignorance & apathy. And the powers that be want to keep it that way. Keep us grubbing for the next dollar so we're all so fucking exhausted & over stretched we don't know what's really going on.

Those Kraft dinners fit in nicely with the hectic schedules that most Americans have. ~sigh

[proud patriot]

12. I couldn't agree more

My husband grew up really poor ..

It was feast or famine as he called it...His Mom
would shop for food but worked and had a long public
transportation commute . So those 4 boys always
emptied the cupboards quickly . I had not seen
empty cupboards before I met my husband.

He would go weeks eating only school meals .
His mom worked hard and did an amazing job .

[NMMNG]

15. Darn it, stop making sense

:P

[DaveJ]

16. About the education points...

I don't think people's lack of education is all that relevant in this case. Thank goodness for the uneducated, because if they did not exist, the educated would have to clean toilets. Being educated, whether it is academically or not, is relative.

They would love to eat finer food if they could afford it, but they can't, so they don't even consider it. I don't even think most upper middle class folks would even consider buying natural food that is 3+ times more expensive when they have kids and teenagers. My wife and I just started buying it now that the kids moved out and we are making a little more money.

My point is that this is more of an example of how the controlling forces could not care less about our well-being. This is another example of how we have it worse than others had it 20 or 30 years ago. We are supposed to think we have it good because of the endless variety of artificial food, and other useless objects like plastic gizmos and ridiculous fashions. It is like a thin coat of paint over what would otherwise be recognized as a rotten economic infrastructure.

[juno jones]

185. The educated also clean toilets. I have met them.

I cut out the middleman and didn't finish college because I saw an art degree would do nothing but have me cook for the rest of my life, unless I was willing to teach grade or middle school. I have worked alongside teachers, phd's, and fellow artists with MFA's. The person who washes your dishes at that favorite restaurant of yours might just have a phd. We aren't all illegal immigrants. Think about it.

edit to add: a few immigrants I've worked with had degrees that were not recognized in the states. So they were back to square one. I like kitchen work because I can woolgather and think about what really matters to me, which is heavy philosophical weirdness.

[glowing]

19. It's true.. and we need it to apply to those on the brink of losing it all.

Believe me, I've had to whip out the cc a time or two to pay for the groceries.. When, if I just had a little bit more, I'd have been ok.. so, now I'm under even more.. its a vicious cycle.. Robbing Peter to pay Paul... as my mother always put it.. She'd hate knowing that I have to buy groceries sometimes on a cc... but its more important I have the house... and if I have to screw the cc companies if it comes to it ever.

[SeattleGirl]

20. I think your ideas are great!

I am sick of poor people being blamed for their situation. And further sick of them being punished by not having the means to buy much nutritious food for their family.

It's so much easier to blame them, I guess, then to do the right thing by them.

[jody]

22. An obvious omission is people should not have children unless they can support them. n/t

[SoCalDem]

24. Most parents realize that AFTER they have the kids.. but

once the kids are here, you kinda-hafta-feed 'em:)

[jody]

26. I support that however somehow society is failing in preventing unplanned pregnancies. n/t

[kdmorris]

25. That's hardly fair!

Newt Gingrich would be so proud of you! What about all the people who COULD afford them when they had them and then fell on hard times and couldn't?

[jody]

28. "hardly fair"? Why should I pay for someone's intentional mistakes? I'll gladly share my meager

earnings to help those upon whom bad fortune has fallen but I object to supporting those who make stupid decisions.

I feel the same way about society supporting those who are injured because they did not wear a seat belt or injured while driving drunk, etc.

[SoCalDem]

When "society" picks & chooses, it is no longer an "open society"

Some PERSON/ENTITY ends up playing god and chooses the worthy vs the unworthy..

That's the problem we already have..

A better way is to collectively decide what the basic needs of ALL the people are, tend to them, and then the people take it from there..

Governments who decide how many children one can have, and who can have them, often end up on the rocks..

If we can throw money by the bushel, down a war- rat hole, we can certainly see to it that people have the basic necessities of llife, can't we?

[kdmorris]

32. And you are here as a Democrat?

Wow, that was an ugly little rant there. You think that people intentionally have kids because they want to steal your stuff?

Here's the deal: poor people often can't afford birth control. And when your life sucks that bad, you expect them to give up having sex with their husbands? Ok, so they have sex with no birth control. So... she gets pregnant. Here's a little newsflash: the government WILL NOT pay for abortions, even if the mother has Medicaid. So, she couldn't afford birth control and she can't afford an abortion. What exactly would YOU have them do? Just give up sex?

You are a perfect example of someone who believes everything they've seen on TV.

[jody]

34. I've been a Democrat a long time. Are you here as a socialist? n/t

[kdmorris]

36. ROFL

You are giving FAR more of your "meager earnings" to the wealthy than you EVER will to the poor. (How did you find your new stealth fighter, anyway?)

Hey, whatever... I don't feel like fighting tonight. You are welcome to your delusions.

[jody]

37. Sorry but a substantial portion of my income supports those who need help. n/t

[kdmorris]

41. Well, I can only assume that you

pay to help people AFTER-TAXES straight out of your pay, while not helping any of those lazy, child-having loafers that just had them so they could get more money from people like you.

Cause I got to tell you, being poor and having people like you treat people like they are crap is the highlight of everyone's life! I'm sure there are people who are just waiting to get laid off so that they can join the ranks of the non-humans, and, if given the chance, would quit their jobs tomorrow for the opportunity to be on welfare and food stamps.

If you are talking about your tax income, that all goes to the wealthy, NOT to those who need help.

[jody]

44. If you believe all your taxes goes to the wealthy, then you really need to study how your government

budget is actually allocated.

Given your self characterization, I must assume you are perhaps a freshman in high school.

I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong. :shrug:

[kdmorris]

46. Yep you're right.. I'm a freshman in high school

I started getting pregnant at 10 so that I could have people like you pay for my kids.

[jody]

48. My you were sexually precocious. n/t

[kdmorris]

49. Well, you want to start throwing around insults

what do you expect? I am not a freshman in high school, but you aren't really interested in the facts. You seem to be clinging tightly to your delusions and adding in insults. So, what would be the point in debating someone like you?

Your views are abhorrent. I could post a link to the federal budget showing that 51% of our tax money goes to military spending, including Bush's best friends, the defense contractors. But I don't think it would really matter to you. You have your view and nothing will change it.

You are the most dangerous type of human.

[jody]

52. You said "your tax income, that all goes to the wealthy". That statement is wrong as any intelligent

person knows.

[kdmorris]

60. That's true

Being an idiot, I have no reading comprehension, so thanks for pointing that out.

Yes, "ALL your tax income goes to the wealthy" is incorrect. But MORE of the federal budget is used for defense spending, which is lining the pockets of the wealthy defense contractors, than any other program. Food stamps and welfare are NOT a substantial portion of the federal budget.

See, there's the difference between you and me... you also said "Sorry but a substantial portion of my income supports those who need help." which any intelligent person also knows is incorrect. But I didn't start calling you names.

[jody]

63. "a substantial portion of my income supports those who need help" is correct because that includes

my taxes and charitable donations.

You naively misinterpreted my statement to mean only taxes.

[kdmorris]

65. I didn't "naively assume" anything

If YOU go back and use your super reading comprehension skills, I SAID that could only happen if you give (i.e. contribute to a charity or person needed charity) part of your AFTER TAX income to someone who needs help.

Perhaps you should stop trying to score points and read what I wrote.

[jody]

67. If you did not "naively assume" then you intentionally distorted and misrepresented what I wrote.

Have a good evening and goodbye. :hi:

[kdmorris]

71. Well, no, I didn't do that either.

I SAID:

Well, I can only assume that you pay to help people AFTER-TAXES straight out of your pay, while not helping any of those lazy, child-having loafers that just had them so they could get more money from people like you.

That was not a distortion or a misrepresentation of anything you said. If you truly give money to charity and pay your taxes, a substantial portion of your income MAY go to people who need help. But, to believe that, one would have to assume that you DO give money to charity, because your TAXES do not pay more for people who need help than they do for the wealthy. Which is what I did, and what I said.

Goodbye, yourself. This was a complete waste of time and, as far as I can tell, nothing was accomplished at all, except that you got a chance to make your own assumptions and act like you are superior to us all. Hope it made you feel better.

[ooglymoogly]

170. oooooooohhhh good save.

and sooooo believable.

[jody]

175. What you believe is your personal problem. Have a nice day. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

171. Given your view that po' folk shouldn't have kids...

... you'll forgive my skepticism that your charitable donations to them are significant.

[jody]

176. Given your interest, you should match my donations. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

181. Then why is your spending out of alignment with your values?

Seriously.

I only see three possibilities.

a) you don't really think that poor people deserve sanctions for having children. It's just an troll act.
b) you have never really connected your values to your spending.
c) you do walk the talk and don't spend a meaningful amount on charity for those who you believe are behaving irresponsibly.

[jody]

183. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. I said "22. An obvious omission is people should not

have children unless they can support them."

Until we reach that point, I will continue to help those I can upon whom misfortune has fallen.

That's my opinion and I believe it's shared by the majority of U.S. citizens.

[juno jones]

186. As the 'po' I say

Re-examine your donations before you feel so smug. Most monies go to salaries of those running the 'charities'. In my humble experience and opinion, of course.

[jody]

196. My donations are to charities for which 90% go to the needy. Good point though and everyone

should check out charities. One of the better sources is Charity Navigator

[CreekDog]

70. My you were incredibly obnoxious. n/t

:rofl:

[conscious evolution]

76. A substantial portion of mine

goes to those same people.
Believe me when I say That the major stockholders of GE Haliburton,Blackwater etc.. do not need our help.

[jody]

184. I agree re the 1% of U.S. citizens who own about 50% of our financial wealth and control every

multinational corporation in the U.S.

They fund Dem and Repug candidates and command bipartisan support from congress for bills that move us inexorably toward a plutocracy.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

39. Wise decision, you chose to run and hide when you are unable to defend your assertions. n/t

[bicentennial_baby]

45. Do you support a woman's right to choose?

B/c it goes both ways, honey.

[jody]

50. Pro choice, yes, but I know there is a breaking point for society to support unwanted children.

The simple economic fact is society can support only a finite number of unwanted children.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

130. Why do you assume that a poor person's children are unwanted? n/t

[kdmorris]

133. I think he's making a statement that society doesn't want them

I don't think he means that the parents don't want them. Just that they are undesirable to society.

[lumberjack_jeff]

148. (S)he should (and may very well be) speaking for him/herself.

The seamless segue between "children that parents can't afford" and "unwanted" makes clear that it is the OP who doesn't want them.

[kdmorris]

165. Yes, but because he's got a degree or several of them

He believes he speaks for all of society. Delusions of grandeur, to be sure.

[jody]

137. I did not say that. You should read more closely. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. Yes you did.

You said that people shouldn't have children if they cannot pay, then you asked what was fair about being forced to support someone else's kids. You then called them "unwanted children".

They're only "unwanted" by you.

[jody]

150. No, I did not say that. I am talking about children born to parents who do not want them or

the parents cannot support the child.

Do you believe such parents have a right to demand that you pay to support their children?

If you support such programs then don't be upset if society, i.e. a simple majority, attaches strings to such welfare programs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

155. Sheesh. It's like talking to my kid.

"people should not have children unless they can support them"

This clearly means that people should not choose to have children unless they can support them, right? Clearly someone who chooses something "wants" that something, right?

You haven't, until now, mentioned anything about parents who don't want their kids. If you were, your entire initial point would be gibberish.

I'll say it again. The only way in which you can accurately describe those kids as "unwanted" is in the first person.

[jody]

156. I'm talking about social programs that government would fund and support. Such programs must compete

against all other government programs for a finite budget.

Unless a particular program is related to an inalienable right, then a simple majority of society through their elected representatives must approve each program.

Given that society does support and fund welfare programs for children whose parents cannot support them, then don't be surprised if society attaches strings to such programs.

[dajoki]

178. Yes, I believe they have such a right...

And I CAN be upset that strings are attached. Luckily for me that my children are grown and never needed any assistance when they were young. However that is not the case now, My wife and I are now struggling to keep our home because a series of unforeseen circumstances, and even though our children are grown, I can see how this is affecting them. I always felt and still do that it is up to our government to lend a helping hand to the needy. I don't know, but I must also be a bleeding heart softie because I believe the government and those that are wealthy enough should have enough compassion to do something to help so many of the unfortunate in our society.

[jody]

180. You "believe they have such a right" and I don't. If such a right is 'inalienable/unalienable" then

it's protected either as an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights or as an unenumerated right under the Ninth Amendment.

I'm not a constitutional scholar so perhaps you can cite a SCOTUS case supporting the right(s) we are discussing as an inalienable/unalienable right. Such a decision would be significant because such rights require government to protect an individual against the tyranny of a simple majority.

If the rights we are discussing are not inalienable/unalienable, then its more like a privilege granted by government as representatives of We the People.

Although Wikipedia is criticized by many, I find the following summary useful for me, Right.

[dajoki]

192. Not inalienable/unalienable, but Moral...

I'm not a constitutional scholar either, so I cant cite a SCOTUS case supporting the rights, but it just seems to me that our society has gotton to the point where the underprivliged do not count. Everybody does a lot of talking about the subject, but nothing ever gets done. I think it is way beyond the Constitution and relies heavily on our Congress people and President doing the right thing for our society. Besides the current administration has trampled the Constitution for its own benefit every chance it gets and you don't have to be a constitutional scholar to see that. Are the tax rebates supported by the Constitution? No, but they will help many families, so why not extend these benefits to the more needy than even these people?

[jody]

194. I use inalienable/unalienable right because that has a specific meaning under our Constitution where

the inalienable/unalienable rights of a single individual must be protected by government against the rest of society unless there are overwhelming benefits to society, e.g. the right to free speech versus the right to shout "fire" in a theater when no fire exists.

As far as I can determine, the right of citizens to welfare is a privilege granted by government and not an inalienable/unalienable right.

If my understanding is wrong about welfare, then I'm sure several of DU's constitutional scholars will correct me with numerous SCOTUS citations.

[dajoki]

199. I highly doubt that anyone living on welfare...

would say they feel "privileged". As I said before there are many reasons a person or family end up in the welfare system, most through no fault of their own. What does it sat about the richest country on earth not being able or willing to help these people through this extremely terrible time in their lives? I will say it again, this is a moral issue.

[jody]

205. What an individual believes is not relevant when lobbying society for welfare. You use the phrase

"moral issue" but what is and is not moral is not clear, see Natural right.

I'm not sure there is agreement that welfare is a "moral right" or a privilege granted by either some ruler, e.g. king or dictator, or society's elected government.

I'm fascinated by the writings of the great philosophers on the issue of rights and it must have been a hot topic in the 16th to 18th centuries leading up to our Bill of Rights.

There are many who believe all basic rights are given by God or other divine being.

In other countries, e.g. England, society believes that every right is given by a central government.

In the U.S. without arguing about the source, sovereign states declared certain rights were natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable before they joined the United States and ratified the Bill of Rights.

I've read state constitutions and I don't recall a single instance where welfare was identified as a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right.

[dajoki]

212. I believe it is clear...

No, I guess the poor have no right in the Constitution to be helped, although there have been many laws passed throughout the years with the intention of doing just that. However, it doesn't say much of a society and government when the issue of poverty keeps being ignored by those with the power to do something. Oh, yeah we hear alot of talk about what is going to be done, but when it comes down to it nothing substantial is accomplished.

So you can talk all you want about the Constitution and inalienable/unalienable, it means nothing to the people who are sleeping under bridges or in cardboard boxes and the millions losing their homes. Morality may mean something different to you than it does to me, but that's fine, nobody has an obligation to reach out and help someone less fortunate than oneself, however I couldn't live with myself if I didn't try.

[jody]

217. I believe you missed my point. Government is obligated to protect inalienable/unalienable rights

enumerated in the Bill of Rights or unenumerated and protected by the Ninth Amendment.

If SCOTUS rules that welfare is a right protected by our Constitution, then government must deal with the welfare problem one way.

Until that happens, welfare is a privilege where We the People contribute something to welfare programs but not enough.

In that sense, government is no different than most citizens who give something to charity but not as much as they could.

IMO anyone who pays to use the Internet for casual chit chat, etc. and not giving that money to needy is being somewhat disingenuous in their argument by demanding others give more.

A famous teacher once told his audience to give until it hurts, sadly not many people including myself do that today.

[dajoki]

219. I try to back up my words...

whenever possible. Right now my family is living on the brink, but I still realize that there are worse off than me. I try to contribute and help out as much as I can being in the situation I am in myself, but like you say, sadly not many people do enough of that today.

[jody]

220. I understand. Have a good evening and may God bless you and yours.

:hi:

[dajoki]

221. Thank you and same to you n/t

:hi:

[dajoki]

222. Delete. Double Post.

[CreekDog]

69. you pay them because it helps the children who did not make any mistake by being born

the purpose of welfare and many other programs is to help kids get what they need and yes, there is no way to help kids and teach their parents a lesson (for whatever reason you deem necessary).

you want to teach those parents a lesson, then you hurt their kids.

[SoCalDem]

29. Yup.. one of our "best" customers showed up with food stamps

She was mortified to use them, and covered them with her hand as she slid them toward me.. She confided that they had lost their house when her husband got laid off and they had sold most of what they had..They were living in a two-bedroom apartment (they had 3 teenagers).. She had MS and could not work, and her husband had been unemployed for about 4 months at that point..

Until he lost his job, they "had it all".. a nice house, a few cars, the works... and then they had 3 teenaged girls and 2 bedrooms...they slept on the sofa bed in the living room.....

[jody]

38. I support government programs for people as you describe. n/t

[no name no slogan]

75. I work in social services, and you see all kinds

Alarmingly, it's a lot more "middle class" people who are using our services these days, but it's not totally unexcpected, unfortunately, after 20+ of what has essentially been Reaganomics, thanks to Greenspan et. al. (the Clinton years were a brief respite, but not that bit a one).

BTW, they quit printing Food Stamps a few years ago. Everything is done via a credit/debit card and EBT these days.

[SoCalDem]

81. I "retired" in 1996, so I still saw the old ones. I'm glad they wnet to the card

at least now people don't have to endure the disapproving looks of the snooty people in line :)

[no name no slogan]

88. I think they've helped a bit in that respect, plus a couple other ways too

It's harder to counterfeit a debit card, and also harder to sell them for cash (which, unfortunately, some people did do with food stamps).

[Norrin Radd]

211. The card is still in a glaring, obvious color as the stamps.

They can't bear to give someone complete anonymity/dignity.

[rucognizant]

179. Yes and I once knew a woman............

who's husband was a CEO, they lived in a fab house in Greenwich CT. had a couple of kids approaching college age, knew the in people in NY City..............His busines went belly up because of Reaganomics & he went into denial, pretending everything was normal, until they foreclosed on the house & cars.....................SHe was working at a low paid "gentile" retail job when I met her and living with friends.........She was then diagnosed with a food related illness ( allergy) requiring special diet. When I moved and lost track of them, they were trying to upgrade their jobs, sharing an apt. for financial reasons even tho they had divorced.............and I guess the kids needed student loans.
This is typical of what happened to the older pre 1946 birthdays, during the Reagan admin. I was caught in the change of rules too. Much of the younger population has NO CLUE, to them the world began with the Boomers! ( agents of change, for better or worse, some of each!)
I grew up eating: ( after WWII rationing ended).......gourmet food, brace of Pheasants comes to mind, given my Father by one of his business associates, my dinner party invitations were sought after in the 60's. Now I'm a genius at creating healthy nutritious meals out of low cost ingredients, grow some of my own, absent those poisonous additives. BUT it takes TIME! Dried peas, bean, lentils..............NO WAY! They take too much time to prepare and tear up my stomach when I eat them! I could use more food stamps to supliment my SS income. Milk! I don't have room for a cow.............. is $4.00 per gal. now. My point, we haven't had children in the household for many years, but buying food is a struggle. There are far more old people in my town struggling to eat, than poor careless young Mothers who "shouldn't have had children"!
That "sloppy Mother living off the rest of us is a Ronald Reagan construct! Passe....give it up!
I get $10.00 in food stamps....I spend about $300.00 per month on food. That's about $100. more than this time last year.........( no increase in food stamps) $24. per month raise!!!! I did get a 1 lb. glossy 100 page Medicare manusel for 2008. could that be where some of your tax money is going Jody?
The bottom line........to impose restriction on peoples diet is NOT DEMOCRATIC! Yes education is needed. Unlike my home town, where I live now has 30, 40 years of unhealthy eating habits. Just about the time that corporations started mucking around with the ingredients and TV started pitching the propaganda!

[east texas lib]

56. Life itself is hardly fair...

Hard times require harder attitudes. With my father being in an Oklahoma prison (fourth
time down, doing life on a career criminal beef, evidently a slow learner!) multiple jobs
for my mom, bad food and worse housing were the order of the day. Most young men in that
situation drop out of school to help support their families, as did I. We sucked it up
and went on because we had to. That being said, Jody is correct. Making contraceptives
and or condoms freely available to people who need them is just common sense. As is
trying to get an education or learn a trade before the children get here. Unplanned
pregnancies happen, I know. That's how I and a lot other people came to exist. But the
poor life sucks mighty hard!

[kdmorris]

84. I know it does

And I'm not advocating not making contraception available. But I think Jody's attitude sucks. You cannot punish a parent for having a child without punishing the child.

The majority of people (mainly women) I met while I was on welfare were in my situation. I was married when I had my 3 daughters, but my ex-husband was abusive, so I left. And he refused to pay child support, so I was forced to go on welfare and food stamps. And the whole 6 years I was trying to get off of welfare, I had everyone telling me "you shouldn't have had them if you couldn't afford them".

Well, that's a great sentiment and all, but they were already there, so how does that help? Once a child is born, you can't make it unborn again (unless you want to go to jail). And I find the attitude that "we shouldn't help people who have children when they can't afford them" abhorrent and very worth of Newt Gingrich, who said that all children of women on welfare should be put in orphanages.

I worked my ass off to get my daughters off of welfare. I sucked it up and went on. And it was fucking hard. I am now a tax-paying member of society and I don't resent at all that ANY of my tax money goes to help children, whether they "should" have been born or not. Because children can't ask not to be born in poverty and frankly, it would have been worse for my daughters if I hadn't received the help I did to get off of welfare.

So, yeah, life is never fair, but we really don't have to go out of our way to make it completely unfair to children who did nothing but be born.

[east texas lib]

110. Help the kids, Train the parents

Job Skills equal a fighting chance. My mom overheard a couple of GS-13's bitching
about welfare once.She had finally gotten a civil service job and was stationed at Dyess
AFB in Abilene TX. She told the two GS types "I bet THOSE kids like to eat just as much
as your's". She was promtly given an unsatisfactory preformance review by one the pricks.
Growing up as "that convict's son" and having my mom viewed as a slut because she would
not re-marry (My Church of Christ relatives!), many was the day that I cursed my own
birth. I've learned a good trade since then and I'm doing OK, but my point is
that just about the worst thing you could ever do to a child is to bring them into a
life of poverty in the first place.

[kdmorris]

116. We seem to be saying the same thing, and yet, I feel like you are disagreeing with me

I KNOW how hard it is to bring up a child when mired in poverty. Which is why I don't want to pick and choose who gets to have help. I agree that birth control needs to be more available and frankly, I also feel that abortion should be available to poor women, via having it paid for by medicaid and insurance companies. That isn't to say that I think every poor woman who gets pregnant should be forced to have an abortion. But I think it should be available.

Jody resents the fact that any of his money goes to those irresponsible people who have given birth to children when they are already poverty stricken. But, he doesn't address the lack of birth control available to poor people. So, by his logic, YOU would not have gotten any help from anyone because your mother was poor when she had you. *I* think that your mother should have gotten even more help.

I don't care if she had you when she was 16 or if she was already dirt poor and "should have known better" or if she got pregnant in a conjugal visit with your father. It is UNACCEPTABLE for our society to treat you or your mother as trash or refuse to help you because they feel that they have the right to judge you. THAT is what I'm saying. Had our society treated you and your mother differently (and of course, this is just my Utopian dream), their would have never been a "day that I cursed my own birth". You may have still grown up with less than others, but it wouldn't have made you a bad or lazy person. There's just no sense of compassion.

[east texas lib]

187. As a matter of fact , she was 16 when i was concieved...

I also have three brothers and a sister.And things were, shall we say, tight around
the home. I was a big kid though, and got job on a drilling rig after I dropped out of
school making every bit 5.50 per hour. Minimum wage was 2.10 per hour. I was thrilled!
It is not that I disagree with you, I do not. It is apparent that you have traveled a
mighty hard road yourself. But I also see the points that Jody was trying make, however
harsh they might seem. There are many, many people who really need help and they shouldn't
have to be made to feel like shit to get it. There are also people who abuse that help
and it is they who need to be shown a different way, the way of training for real world
job skills so they make more than the minimum wage. I do indeed have compassion for those
less fortunate than I. But compassion must not be coupled with dependency. I speak not
of the children here, but of the adults who brought them into a tough world. Dependency
upon others for your survival is the death of self respect and of the very soul of a
person. When I was in grade school most of my pals were from the Hendricks Home for
Children(really an orphanage, I guess) and what was called the "Boy's Ranch". Seems I
had more in common with them than kids who did not come what they used call a "broken
home". There were some whose parents loved them but financially could not provide for
them. There were some whose parents just flat-ass did not want them. Since my father
was busy re-populating Texas with other ladies in between stints in the pen, I kinda
knew where they were coming from. Living with family is better than an orphanage, but
living in an orphanage is damn sure better than the streets.

[juno jones]

189. welcome to du

Sounds like you had it tough and you're probably right on many points. We are never given real choices, to our fertility, to our job training etc that would really make a difference in how we live. The dem party used to represent the working man. And some of us are still here to rattle the cage. I too worked hard for years for around 5.50 an hour. Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, I made other people rich, now they are more than happy to shut me out as 'lazy poor'...fuck'em. Keep testifying, keep it in the faces of those who would deny us for not having been able to go to college, etc etc.

[east texas lib]

193. Thank you for the welcome

It is ironic, I think, that I now work in the heavy commercial sector of the HVAC
industry keeping the upper echelons of large corporations comfy. But when the corporations
go bankrupt and the tech bubbles burst, I still have a job. I am fortunate, indeed!

[kdmorris]

198. DOH, I'm so unobservant!!

Welcome to DU, indeed. I didn't even look at your post count! Sorry about that.

:toast:

[juno jones]

206. I feel the same about cooking (which is what I do)

yet worry if a day will come that no-one would be able to afford my skills. We keep the upper echelons comfy but are always overlooked.

[kdmorris]

200. Ah, I see

I do agree with what you are saying. Jody doesn't seem to be saying any of that, which is why I ended up getting frustrated.

But everything else you said, I agree with wholeheartedly! And I am sorry your life was so hard. I'm glad, too, that you are in a profession that everyone needs someone on-site to do. My profession (computer programmer) is quickly heading overseas.

[east texas lib]

209. Thank you too, for the welcome!

And your concern. However, I have it all compared to others I have known, and I would
bet that many of us here could say the same. In 1986 I lived in Sacramento,CA for a year
and a half. During that time I befriended a man from Sri Lanka named Charma whom I worked
with at window manufacturing plant. As I came to know him better, he told me and some
others of our little group of workers of his life there. His 10th birthday present was
an AK-47 from his father along with an "invitation" to join the Tamil Tigers. Translation:
"Join us or your family dies". And he did. I don't think the worst day of my life can compare
to that. It truly is a matter of perspective and life experience that shapes
us all, isn't it?

[gollygee]

33. Right, because circumstances never change after you have kids

and birth control never fails.

[jody]

42. Those are special cases. I assume you don't support creating programs for every unusual situation

that arises.

The primary failure of central planned economies and their government is the inability to plan for all contingencies given finite funds for all programs.

[huskerlaw]

99. You honestly think that

changed circumstances and failed birth control are "unusual situations"?

:rofl:

Honey, you need a reality check.

[jody]

102. "failed birth control" is a special case with failure rates of 1 to 10+%.

Comparison of birth control methods

I have a problem with couples who do not use birth control methods knowing they will not be able to provide for a child and then expecting society to support that child.

Do you support such behavior?

"changed circumstances" including such things as one or both parents becoming ill and unable to work is another special case and I support social programs that help children in those homes.

[huskerlaw]

111. In this economy,

changed circumstances are FAR from the rare case. Or have you not noticed the unemployment rate and the extreme increase in home foreclosures?

[sniffa]

47. A longtime DUer

So sad.

[jody]

55. What's sad? The sad thing is people who do not recognize the simple fact that society has limited

funds.

My comment was that in addition to finding innovative ways to stretch a family's food budget, society may need to find more effective ways to reduce unwanted births.

Since you oppose my belief, I must assume you support an increase in unplanned and unwanted births. Now that's really sad.

[sniffa]

57. I support both unplanned births and mandatory abortions.

I'm wacky like that.

And yes, I repeat, just fucking sad.

After seeing what you said to someone way more knowledgeable than yourself, my statement stands. :hi:

[jody]

59. You support "mandatory abortions"! I don't remember reading that in the Democratic Party platform.

You say "After seeing what you said to someone way more knowledgeable than yourself".

What post was that and how do you know that person is more knowledgeable than me?

Have you read my bio or vitae or perhaps something I published?

[sniffa]

62. Glad you asked.

But you already knew that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2766353&mesg_id=2766919

[jody]

66. Now that you've cleared that up, I do indeed have more degrees than bicentennial_baby has

acknowledged. That's just the way things are.

[bicentennial_baby]

68. Soooo....Why was that a ridiculous question?

[sniffa]

72. Sure you do.

It's quite obvious. :thumbsup:

[jody]

80. Have a great day and good bye. n/t

[sniffa]

87. awww

the poor douchebag has had enough. :cry: :cry: :cry:

hopefully she goes back to the gungeon to cry about the gubmint taking away her guns. :cry: :cry: :cry:

why are such fucking maggots allowed to stay on DU?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. And I Have More Letters In My Screenname. Both Are Equally Irrelevant Statements.

[jody]

79. I agree academic degrees are irrelevant statements, that's why I never list mine. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. Course, I Wasn't Really Seeking Your Approval Or Anything.

[jody]

85. And I don't value your approval either. Have a great day. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

96. Course, I Wasn't The One Arrogant Or Misguided Enough To Have Given Any.

[sniffa]

105. She can't read it.

She put you on IGNORE. :crazy:

[huskerlaw]

100. Then why did you insist

that bi_baby couldn't possibly know what she was talking about unless and until she had a Ph.D?

Again... :rofl:

[jody]

104. Because it was a humorous reply to that post. n/t

[huskerlaw]

112. It was a bullshit reply to that post.

You accused her of being a 1st semester freshman and then, when she stated that you were incorrect, you asserted that she still couldn't possibly know anything unless she had a graduate degree.

Only when YOU were questioned about your collegiate experience did you claim that degrees don't mean anything. That leaves one to wonder if, in fact, you don't have a grad degree in economics either, and therefore were no more qualified, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, to offer an opinion.

You can't call someone out like that and then refuse to state your own qualifications.

By the way, I have two post-graduate degrees. So, by the standards you tried to set, I'm educated enough to post in this thread.

[jody]

121. My posts in context to a single person are appropriate. You taking things out of context suggest you

do not believe the person who made that post is capable of defending her or him self.

Congratulations on the two post-graduate degrees you claim to have.

Goodbye :hi:

[huskerlaw]

125. I do believe she's capable of defending herself

In fact, she put you in your place quite nicely. However, that doesn't mean I can't call bullshit when I see it.

Goodbye indeed.

[TZ]

128. Hey you can join the club now!

You contradict my world view so you must not have any degrees! Only I KNOW. I am the magic omniscient PhD (=pilled higher and deeper is very appropro now)
What part of law in huskerlaw is not ummm obvious?

:rofl: :hi:

[huskerlaw]

153. Yay!

I wanted to be part of the club!

And yeah...I just put the "law" in there cuz I'm a huge Ally McBeal fan...

:rofl:

[juno jones]

197. see my reply #185

edit because I messed up posting:
What a person does for a living is in no way reflective of educational achievement. And I am a relatively educated woman who avoided pregnancy until 27 when I was failed by the pill. So circumstances do change., And people deal with what resources they have as best they can and anyone who bitches about this and calls us liars and lazy is NOT A LIBERAL. We are here at this place because we supposedly care for society and the worker. What gives with this "I'm so over-educated so now I'm a classist and I'll advise you not to have children I don't want you to have." You don't always know when you are going to meet the buddha on the road...what you do to the least of these, you do to me, etc etc etc. You cannot judge by appearence, income, etc. People will surprise ya.

[TZ]

82. FYI...This type of person might have alphabet soup after their name

But that is obviously NOT a measure of intelligence here.
(Trust me, I met my share of truly stupid PhD's with my stint at NIH..)

[bicentennial_baby]

86. Which type?

Him or me? :P

:hi:

[TZ]

89. Not you

I've only got a lonely BS degree. Of course that makes me an EXCELLENT bullshitter...and well able to detect it as well..
BTW- answer me a question tho'---Someone told me the majority of our taxes goes to pay interest on the national debt. Is that true?

[kdmorris]

91. From this site, it's #2

Military spending is #1:

Your slice of the pie

The fiscal year 2004 federal budget is about $2 trillion. The spending in percentages this year looks like this:
26.2%—military
22.6%—interest on the debt
19%—health care
5.5%—income security
3.4%—veterans’ benefits
3.3%—education
2.5%—nutrition spending
1.6%—housing
1.6%—environment
11.4%—everything else

http://www.truthintaxation.us/?tax_inform=whereTaxesGo

[bicentennial_baby]

92. As far as I know, a large part of tax revenue goes to

the General Fund, which pays interest etc. on the National Debt. Yes.

[conscious evolution]

108. BS=Bullshit

MS=More shit
PHD=Piled higher & deeper

[conscious evolution]

107. LOL!!

[lildreamer316]

115. I had no idea that i was pregnant until I was five (FIVE) months along.

AND I was on birth control AND we used condoms.
WIC and Medicaid saved my, and probably my baby's, life. Thank God it was there.
I apologize to you for not planning to have my child when I *thought* I could support him.
We're doing just fine, thank you very much..and we are no longer on federal/state support. But just barely.

[jody]

122. Accidents happen and you say "we are no longer on federal/state support". There are others who do

not attempt to avoid pregnancy and cannot and possibly will never be able to support a child.

Obviously you are not in that particular group and it's those I am discussing, not you.

[dropkickpa]

131. Sweet jesus fuck

Not this Ronald Ass-sucking Reagan "Welfare queen" bullshit.

[jody]

134. What type of social government do you support? If you expect society to care for everyone then

don't be upset if society, i.e. a simple majority, make rules with which you disagree.

There really is no such thing as a free lunch, welfare programs come with strings attached. :shrug:

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dropkickpa]

213. I support a government that works to

support it's people, to show a shred of humanity. You, on the other hand, seem to be a proponent of eugenics (only the rich should have children, that way we'll get rid of the poor, minorities, and the uneducated).

You have absolutely no fucking clue how welfare works, and it shows in your whole-hearted acceptance of the reich-wing reagan-era "welfare queen" propaganda.

[jody]

218. Why do you keep twisting and distorting what I say? I know how welfare works and I also know

leaders pleading for welfare for special groups also without exception plead with their constituents to stop having children whom they cannot support.

If you don't already know that, then you really do need to learn more about welfare programs.

[dropkickpa]

223. I've been on welfare and my kid sucked off of the nations teat

I'm one of those welfare queens you so hate. I'm VERY well aquainted on how welfare works.

[jody]

224. I do not hate welfare queens. I believe society should help those who have had bad fortune beset

them.

I do not believe society should be required to help those who knowingly take risk.

That includes wealthy who build palaces on unsuitable terrain and then expect society to rebuild when their places are destroyed and numerous other situations that occur when people from all walks of life knowingly take great risks.

You say "I'm one of those welfare queens you so hate".

I don't know you or what you mean by "welfare queen" but Wiki gives one definition as:

The first attributed use of the term "welfare queen" is by Ronald Reagan in 1976 during a campaign:

"She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names."

Anyone who fits that definition is obviously a criminal and should be prosecuted.

[eShirl]

120. henceforth you shall be known to me as

"ignored"

[gateley]

31. Fruits and veggis? Totally out of reach for some people.

A DUer posted once, for a dollar s/he could get an orange, or a McDonald's double cheeseburger. I'd go for McDonalds if I was feeding a hungry family. Or myself!

[conscious evolution]

109. I know a young lady

on foodstamps who said the exact same thing.
She is in the same boat as a poster upthread.Two daughters by a husband who was an abusive drug addict who left her and refuses to pay child support.
She will have the last laugh though.She is in her third year of medical school.

[kdmorris]

119. THAT is the best revenge

When I left my abusive ex-husband, three daughters (aged 5, 2 and 10 months) in tow, besides having him arrested, I wanted to prove to him that I wasn't trash.

He refused to pay child support. He even quit his job so he didn't have to. So, I tried working 3 jobs for a while and barely survived, missing a lot the first year of my children's milestones. But, when he went to jail for 2 years, I went to school.

I remarried 10 years ago to a wonderful man. He helped me have the confidence I needed in myself to be able to get a really good job (I had gone to a technical computer school). So, here I am now, 15.5 years after I left my abusive ex-husband and my husband and I have bought a house, we make a good salary and were able to raise our daughters out of poverty. My ex-husband doesn't see the children, hasn't since 1996, because he abused them. Last I heard, he was still on crack, at 45 had married an 18 year old that he had been with since she was 16, and has another daughter who has been taken from them and is in the care of Social Services.

So, even though I don't think about it as much anymore, I won. I have a great man who loves me and treats me with respect, a nice little house in sunny South Florida, three daughters who have grown up relatively OK, and a fenced yard for our 2 dogs to run around in.

Tell your friend that I admire her spirit and give her a hug for me. She probably needs one every once in a while.

[conscious evolution]

124. I give her one every chance I get

Far as that goes,I'm trying to give her more than hugs.

She's a keeper in my book.Now if she would only see me in the same light.

[kdmorris]

132. Give it time

Sometimes, after being through something like an abusive marriage, a woman is too scared to be vulnerable again.

If you have patience, she will come around. Just ask my husband. :-D

[Jed Dilligan]

40. There is also a housing issue

A lot of poor people don't have functioning kitchens, not to mention cooking skills.

[porphyrian]

43. Kick for the commie-pinko bleeding heart softie. -n/t

[Maddy McCall]

54. So you advocate resolving judgmentalism by putting even more paternalism in its place.

Sorry. Can't support that.

[SoCalDem]

74. Not at all.. Just that IF the government is going to sponsor

"food programs", they do it for nutritious non-junk foods.. The "other" foods are still available for purchase..along with the non food stamp purchases that everyone makes..

I am NOT saying that we should dictate what people eat..just that if the GOVERNMENT is going to subsidize any portion of poor people's food, it should be for food that is nutritious..

The same government gives HUGE subsidies to the agri-businesses that grow the stuff and then process it, and then again, because these companies seem to have PLENTY of money to advertise the crap they make..non-stop.. and once again they get subsidized as food stamps are used to BUY the stuff..and again when the subsidized pharma companies sell the drugs for all the diseases people get from years of non-nutrition & lack of available health care.

[mdmc]

58. kicking

cause i'm s leftie too

[Gormy Cuss]

61. Some good ideas, SoCal.

Especially the part about separate vouchering for nonfood items like toilet paper, soap, menstrual supplies and a biggie not on your list: diapers.

The issue of steering people towards only certain food purchases is trickier than it seems. First off, it surprises many to find out that the lowest income families' spending on fruits and vegetables is similar on a percentage basis to families at higher income levels.

From recent research conducted for the USDA:

Household Spending on Fruits and Vegetables
Is Steady Across Most Incomes

Food stamp benefits are designed to be used in grocery
stores. For all income levels, food spending patterns at the
grocery store are consistent with what we found for the
lowest income households (see figs. 1 and 5). Spending on
“other foods” always exceeds spending on meats, which
always exceeds spending on fruits and vegetables, which
always exceeds spending on cereals, which exceeds spending
on dairy products.

The limitation in actual dollars however dictate choices like canned or frozen fruits and vegetables rather than fresh. On a nutritional basis the problem there lies mostly in the added sodium and sugars and reduced fiber. One of the ways the USDA suggests that consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables would increase is by increasing the food stamp allotments with targeted vouchers for these items. I know that in some states special vouchers only usable at farmer's markets have been used this way with some success although it's obviously not a solution for all areas. By the way, I remember when USDA moved away from surplus foods distribution as the primary vehicle for food assistance and one of the reasons was that there was too much of a disconnect between the commodities distributed and the foods people were accustomed to eating. That led to waste. That's why the commodities distributions these days are targeted to institutional uses and as supplements to other food assistance.

Your comment about the food industry interests is spot on. If the USDA defined acceptable foods as possessing certain levels of nutrition, you can bet that industry would respond by modifying junk foods to add calcium, Vitamin A, et cetera in order to keep the product on the list. Banning all processed foods from the program would make it difficult for some families because of lack of cooking knowledge, lack of storage, and other factors including a considerable amount of cost at the supermarket in programming and monitoring food items purchased via food stamps. These are some of the reasons for the broad definition of what constitute allowed food. It's not a problem that can't be solved, it's just tougher than it looks.

[madmom]

90. I work in the deli of a big box store and the food we throw away everyday is

disgusting.We asked once if we could donate it to a homeless shelter and were told no because of the fear of being sued if someone gets sick.I worked in a different store before same job, same story.I find it appalling to throw all that food away when there are so many hungry people out there.

[kdmorris]

94. They are trying to change that law in Florida

to allow restaurants and such to give the food to homeless shelters. But, given how fucked up Florida is, I doubt it will pass.

It's still illegal here to feed the homeless outside of a shelter, and then... they didn't build any shelters for the homeless (not needed, don't you know? I mean, the homeless will never freeze in South Florida)

[Ilsa]

101. Texas residents cannot give hunted deer to food banks, either.

At least not in this county. Maybe some other counties are able to do this. But there is potential for deer, birds, turkey, etc to be donated.

[pitohui]

93. ok i officially don't get it

you say this: If your utilities are always on the verge of being turned off, you tend to buy stuff that requires little cooking/refrigeration.

If you are semi-homeless most of the time, you tend to buy food wherever you are at the time..(convenience stores don't have a lot of fresh foods)


then you suggest passing a law such that the food stamp user is forced to either buy food that will go bad or else discover that there is no food in the store near her home that she can actually buy at all

wtf?

if you were going to also guarantee the electric and the gas stay on, and give taxi/transportation vouchers so that she could travel to stores that actually carry decent fresh produce/meat, then it might be one thing (altho it's still fairly patronizing to tell people what they can and cannot eat)

but just to change the law so that they can't really use the food stamps effeectively to keep themselves fed...???

i know your heart is in the right place so i'm stumped as to how you erpect this to work out anything but disastrously in practice

some of these very poor neighborhoods don't have grocery stores as we know it, there is no fresh meat/produce/etc, they are more like convenience store with a few ethnic items in a lot of cases, at least the ones i've been in

if someone has no vehicle, how far as they going to have to go to get to the local "real" grocer with "real" food? and if they have to do this several times a week, because how many bags of groceries can you carry on the bus...?

it just don't make sense to me

you agree that there are sound and good reasons for convenience food to be bought by the food stamp user, then you decide that, well, too bad, that little bit of convenience must be taken away

the logic isn't there or if it is, not immediately obvious to me

[dflprincess]

95. If you run into someone who has "issues" with food stamps you can also remind them that government

food subsidy programs were not begun for strictly altruistic reasons.

During WWII military doctors were shocked by the number of potential recruits they turned away because they had problems that were the result of nutritional deficiencies in childhood (remember, these were Depression kids). One reason food programs were started was to keep the potential cannon fodder healthy...That should be enough to pacify conservatives.

[lost-in-nj]

98. my family was on food stamps

when I was growing up

my mom was always embarrassed
but we ate good


she NEVER abused it...
we ate the basics

and survived


we also got the "cheese"


and yanno
it was ok....
it got me to where I am today

and I am in a good place




lost

[Quantess]

103. Strategic point about condoms:

If the indigent are going to get assistance for things like soap, laundry detergent, toilet paper, and shampoo, then it's only right to give them free condoms too. They're going to need more condoms since they will be cleaner, good smelling, and more attractive! :hide:

Seriously though, I'm all for it! I think it's a travesty for anyone to go without a condom, who needs one.

[nadine_mn]

113. ok some one hold me back

cuz I am about to open up a can of Whup ass on some people

For the record:
I was homeless as a kid - guess what my mom didn't plan it we were abandoned by my asshole step-dad. We finally got gov't help (mmmm cheese) and went on welfare (back in the paper stamp days) and my mom was mortified. These circumstances happen every goddamn day - they are not special circumstances as some idiot has suggested.

And as far as "loafers" who are just sitting around collecting that whopper of a welfare check... the reality is, without transportation and without subsidized childcare you cannot afford to be a single parent and work.

In Minneapolis I was shocked to learn that the main homeless shelter charges $38 per person per night - doesn't matter if its a mom and a child and the child shares the bed with mom - $76 for the night. And if they can't pay? Then they can get vouchered in by the county, and the funds are deducted from their welfare check - so many times, all they have is the food stamps and no cash. Imagine putting a deposit on an apartment with just foodstamps. I have worked with homeless families and families experiencing domestic violence and chemical dependencies. I am shocked by the system that sets people up to fail.

And since our gov't favors teaching abstainance only in schools, and no funds for birth control (but you can get viagra) or abortions, it is amazing how many unwanted pregnancies there are.

So for the soul-less who think that welfare should only be given to families if they qualify under the right set of circumstances - I would love to be there when you explain it to the children that they shouldn't eat because their mommies and daddies shouldn't have had them in the first place.

[EFerrari]

114. What you said, nadine.

:applause::applause::applause:

[kdmorris]

118. Well said

I can't really add anything to that. Just well said.

[juno jones]

202. Right on! n/t

[treestar]

117. I hear you

How does the corporate media manage to do it? What flaw in human nature requires so much resistance to helping the poor and the downtrodden, or not so much that, but once helping, so much nosy concern with the details? If the energy spent on worrying about the activities of the very poor were spent observing how the rich get rich, we could indeed do away with poverty.

The idea that the poor are "lazy" is medieval. We know the economy is organized in a complex way, and that it is easy to fall through the cracks, especially without initial advantages. It is this smug desire to judge other people from a position of relative luck. I will never understand middle class people going on and on about things like this - how can they not be embarrassed? It is logical to complain about the rich and what they are doing, but being nosy and judgmental about the down and out is just unsupportable.

[AlertLurker]

123. Many poor people are lazy & dumb & they eat bad food..

Poverty is a vicious cycle. Lower expectations, less/worse educational opportunities make bad decisions for poor people almost inevitable.

Have you ever watched people at the check-out line and even when they don't have kids with them, you can tell? Kraft Dinner, Chef-Boyardee, Sugar laden cereals, various soda pop, white bread, potato chips, candy, etc.?

Food Stamps are a positive, if you are on social assistance. I know people who are too embarrassed to use them, though. I have also actually known people that will SELL them to others at a discount so they can buy beer and smokes. It disgusts me to see people mortgaging their childrens' health and futures like this. I am sure that it is the exception, rather than the rule, however - BUT it DOES happen.

Vouchers could be good, but it removes personal choice. People will always find a way around any food voucher program, too.

Education is the key. Poor, dumb, lazy people are unfortunately just more likely to have poor, dumb, lazy children.

The cycle will be self-perpetuating until changes in the STATE education and social assistance programs make it otherwise.

[nadine_mn]

127. wow... I grew up poor, we were on welfare for a bit and I went to law school

Shit I also eat sweet cereals w/ soy milk and eat mac & cheese w/ my imported beer. I also donate and volunteer at local charities, volunteer as a state animal humane agent, and work with victims of violence. I am overeducated and underpaid.

I am also lazy (look at my house any day). So where do I fit into your perception of poor people?

I am so excited to know that middle and upper class people are not dumb and lazy and do not have dumb and lazy children - I mean look at George Bush.

[AlertLurker]

136. I appreciate your contribution.

Perhaps I phrased my initial reply badly.

I did not intend to mischaracterise ALL poor people, but I suppose I may have come off sounding like that. Apologies for any unintended offense.

The sweet cereal/mac 'n' cheese stuff was simply meant as an example...but perhaps it is a poor one.

All I was attempting to point out is that poverty can be a self-perpetuating vicious cycle when education and social programs are underfunded at the state and local levesl of government.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gormy Cuss]

139. Well, you're lazy because you were raised that way.

Don't you get it? Those of us who were raised with the taint of welfare just can't help ourselves. :sarcasm:
And rich, lazy dumb children don't collect welfare directly -- they have their daddy's tax advisers collect it for them.

[Breeze54]

142. REPUKE ALERT!!!!

:puke:

YOU make me sick!! Stay in Canada, please??????

[truedelphi]

143. Look, many rich people are lazy and dumb and they eat bad food

And we subsidize the corporations they run just the same.

In fact, the rich who eat poorly are probably harder to convert - they are RICH, so why the heck would they think their lifestyle is at fault. You might not catch them at the check out line with a can of Chef Boyardee, but they are at the local restaurant eating CHEESE FRIES (a whooping 2800 calories per order)

At least poor people are probably willing to admit their lives could be better and change is needed.

[AlertLurker]

160. I understand. I wasn't attempting to be biting or nasty.

I grew up in a pretty poor family, myself - six kids, dad didn't finish High School until he was in his '30s...

I was lucky enough to be born in rural Ontario, however, and we have a small farm. I have never known what it is to be truly hungry, or homeless, or without clothing or necessary medication. I grew up with people that were truly poor my entire life. I never considered myself poor until I went to University, however.

I was not bitching about ALL poor people, and I did not mean to make it sound as though people living in poverty are all busy making poor babies (although, looking at my post, now, it does kind of sound like it).

I meant that until the root causes of poverty are addressed by local and state governments, we can expect the cycle to continue. I meantioned the grocery and food stamps thing because it seemed like a good example of how this cycle continues, and how people who abuse the system always seem to screw it up for those in genuine distress.

As long as those in government can point to someone (anyone, actually) abusing social assistance programs, they will make sure that the abuser is seen to be the rule, rather than the exception. It's cheaper that way. This is why they continually drag their feet and keep their (I mean OUR) money in their pockets rather than where it belongs...

[juno jones]

204. Hell yeah look at what-his face the Chevron dude

You do not sport that kind of chin michelin when you are eating healthy. Dude is probably on mind-boggling medications for BP, diabetes, gout, whatever etc...oooh, but HE can afford insurance to cover his lack of foresight, and somehow that is better for us as a society HOW?

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

152. The contentious word in your OP subject is "Many" and you will be criticized for not supporting the

view of some posters who assert "NO poor people are lazy & dumb & they DO NOT eat bad food.."

Instead you should have stated "Many rich people are lazy & dumb & they eat bad food", a description that might be correct for some but not all, e.g. Bill Gates, Bob Johnson, Oprah Winfrey.

[AlertLurker]

162. Understood. And appreciated.

I suppose "SOME" would have been a better choice, and I realize that this may be the exception, rather than the rule.

I really AM sorry about how my original post SOUNDED. What I wrote was not what I intended.

I will pay more attention in future and I am quite sure that those same chastisers on this thread will be more than willing to bloody my nose again on the next one I screw up.

[jody]

163. Have a great day. n/t

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

174. Have a nice day. n/t

[RadiationTherapy]

177. yeah, right, you too. n/t

[huskerlaw]

154. Please stay in Canada

We're full up on ignorance down here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

208. Many engineers are lazy and dumb and eat bad food too.

One shouldn't devise social policy using the least common denominator.

As a group, nutrition among the poor is inadequate. It is our problem as voters and citizens to apply our resources in a way that provides the maximum benefit.

The state isn't going to cure the problem of laziness. At worst, the promulgation of these stereotypes saps our will to solve OUR problem.

[Rosemary2205]

126. kick to one of the best posts on DU I have ever read -- Thanks

[Breeze54]

146. I knew there was

A reason you really irritated me....

Is it for YOU thinking this insulting OP was good

or because you didn't READ IT and kicked it anyway??

:grr:

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Rosemary2205]

151. LOL

It's OK sweetie. I don't mind if you disagree with me.

:hi:


BTW - I don't live in the inner city, I live in a lower middle, to upper lower class suburb of Atlanta. The grocery store here is Kroger or Walmart. They closed the local Publix because the clientel wasn't buying Boar's Head, brei and organic apples. There's no Trader Joes, or Whole Foods or any other of those kinds of places within 15 miles of my neighborhood. Even the Walmart and Kroger can be very hard to get to with no car, and the convenience store is within walking distance.

Shopping stores of all kinds are fleeing left and right because we lower end folks just aren't profitable enough. -- though title pawn places seem to be cropping up everywhere and dollar stores are adding more and more super cheap off brand grocery items.


Maybe your little corner of America has a bunch of people on food stamps that can't hardly wait to spend it on organic produce at Trader Joes instead of off brand boxed mac and cheese, bulk beans and rice at the local hole in the wall grocery, dollar store or Walmart. Maybe the poor folks in your town are clamouring for fresh organic fruit and veggies to run through that Jack Lelane juicer they got for Christmas and never ever "waste" their food stamps on that 50 cent 2 liter of Big K high fructose corn syrup pop to give the kids and cheap treat once a month or so. Maybe it is different in your corner of America.

As for my little corner of America, the OP is spot on.

[conscious evolution]

188. Don't know about Trader Joes

But the Whole Foods On Ponce is over priced and has little in the way of everyday type of foods.The clientel they are targeting is geared towards the upper middle class and upwards.
You are 100% correct about transportation being a problem OTP.What little Mass transit there is in the burbs seems to be geared more towards moving people into Atlanta then locally.

[Breeze54]

141. "Where poor people tend to live, there are not many Trader Joes, Whole Foods, or any other major..."

Baloney.

That's not true at all and that is also part of the lie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That the poor ONLY LIVE IN THE INNER CITY!!

BULL CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cleita]

158. Poor live in rural areas too and they are working poor.

Trust me I have lived in those places and you are lucky to have a Safeway in many of them.

[huskerlaw]

159. Oh COME ON

Nobody said anything about the inner city. Nice straw man though.

There are many neighborhoods outside of an inner city and many of them are divided into rich people and poor people. This is especially true in Los Angeles, which is where I live.

I just pulled up a map of Trader Joe's locations in Los Angeles. Of which there are MANY. Let's take a nice sampling of places were Trader Joe's is located...

Burbank, Studio City, Sherman Oaks, West Hills, Woodland Hills, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Ranchos Palos Verdes, Long Beach...the list continues, but the point is...

How many of those communities do you think are affordable for even middle class people? Basically none. Most of the locations aren't even in Los Angeles proper, and those that are, are in expensive parts of town. Don't believe me? Go to the website and pull up the Google map. If you're at all familiar with LA, you'll notice a pattern real fast.

Forget about inner-city Los Angeles, these stores are barely in Los Angeles itself AT ALL.

[kineneb]

195. closest real grocery store is 10 miles from here

the small local grocery is well stocked, but very expensive. Yes, there are rural areas, most in fact, that lack major stores... well, because they are rural! At the end of the month, ramen noodles start to look really good.

And the inner cities have lost many of their stores... used to live in Richmond, CA... for some, the closest real grocery store was 5 miles away. The stores in the old part of town closed down when the area spiraled into poverty after the shipyard closed. They finally got a cheapo big-box "grocery" store there after a long petition drive and lots of work.

Note that packaged foods have gotten more expensive as well- mac&cheese, unless on sale, is 1 or 2 boxes/$1. There is no more "cheap" food, unless it is from the monthly food handout. And damn, I do not need any more canned green beans or mashed potato flakes; I wish they had better offerings. But at least it is free. Last time they had lots of day-old bread, some of it fairly fancy (olive bread!).

[Cleita]

157. Great rant SoCalDem and so true.

Why does everyone beat up on the least advantaged among us? It seems to be universal. People are poor because of being born poor, born into an underclass, or falling into circumstances often beyond their control. We as a society have a duty to try to pull them up a few rungs on the ladder to self sufficiency or at least for their children. Food stamps for real food goes a long way.

When I lived in the northwest, every time I went to the store, I noticed the women ahead of me in line paid with food stamps. Why? Where they lazy? No! When you live in those small rural places work is seasonal and pays very poorly. Everyone worked at something but needed food stamps to get by.

While our millionaires and billionaires are having ski holidays in places like Aspen and Sun Valley, the people who service them by working in those resorts are poorly paid, only get paid when there is actual skiing and must live miles from the chic chalet towns because they can't afford to live in the places that they work in. These people used to benefit from food stamps. I don't believe food stamps cover much for their needs any more.

[NashVegas]

161. I'm Considering Moving to a Neighborhood Where There's a Community Garden

Could be interesting.

[GliderGuider]

164. Make the "minimum wage" a "living wage"

Once upon a time, "minimum wage" meant the minimum required to get by. Now it means the minimum they can get away with paying you.

When I was just out of school and making minimum wage, I paid rent, food, phone, school loan, clothes and entertainment (i.e. beer). I shared my apartment in an upper middle-class, trendy part of town with one other person.

Now, if you're making minimum wage, you're sharing your home and food with cockroaches. The buying power of an hour's work has plummeted.

Join the campaign for a living wage. In Ontario, you can find us at http://www.amillionreasons.ca/ and at http://www.labourcouncil.ca/

I also found a site in OK: http://www.letjusticeroll.org/

HTH

[diane in sf]

166. I totally agree

[puebloknot]

167. I agree that a sane program which would *help* people to eat a healthy diet...

...would make a huge difference in this country. We should have *safe* shelters where people can eat what is offered, or where they can do some cooking for themselves.

I have a friend in California who is a health consultant, and while having a healthy meal at his table, we looked out the window and saw a *very* chunky teenage boy blowing leaves with one of those monstrous, loud leaf blowers. My friend commented that in addition to problems of poor eating habits, that boy was an example of what has gone wrong. "Back in the day," that same boy would be burning calories by raking those leave, exerting some energy, instead of shuffling along with a mechanized device.

So many people, and I'm not even talking about impoverished people, have accepted the idea that they're too busy to bother with cooking from scratch. So they go for the many packaged offerings the supermarkets have to offer. It takes no time at all to steam some broccoli, and maybe melt some cheese over it, and add a little tofu or grilled chicken. The problem is in the head: When people are stresed out, just giving thought to what to cook when they're tired is the first hurdle to get over.

Truth be told, too many people who *have* the resources to eat well just don't do so. Perhaps no one has ever taught them how easy cooking for themselves can be.

Whenever I'm thinking about this topic, I recall an incident my daughter and I observed, while on a long road trip. Somewhere in middle America, we stopped to eat at a restaurant, and as we were exiting our car, a huge white van pulled up near us. The van contained a mommie and a daddy and two babies in their car seats. Both parents were dressed to the nines for tennis, not a speck of dirt on tennis shorts or shoes. The babies were also spotlessly dressed in white. The thing that made this scenario noticeable was that both parents were *huge* and the babies in the car seats were *huge*! Even at around 18 months and 30 months, those babies were already extremely obese. That was, it seemed to me, a case of a young family chasing the "good life," with the means to do it, without understanding that eating well could be the *best* trophy, over all the other things they possessed.

In the past, we thought of poor people as skinny -- a result of not having enough to eat. Our contaminated food supply gives the lie to that idea now. Obesity is a growing problem with people who are just trying to get to tomorrow.

This is a great article, and one of the many things the American dollar should be addressing -- rather than spending those dollars on wars of conquest.

[LWolf]

168. You make the essential points quite eloquently.

Thanks!

:hi:

[cgrindley]

173. Orwell covers this in Road to Wigan Pier

and he was right.

cigarettes, a couple of Miller high life and chips do a hell of a lot more to fill a belly than any amount of nutritious food. For some people, a pack of smokes and a candy bar are the only luxuries they're going to get.

[cutlassmama]

190. Well said! WIC is now giving $10 vouchers to the Farmer's Markets

so people can get fresh fruits/vegetables.

[flvegan]

191. A "better way" would be nutritionally based.

95% of this country doesn't know shit about nutrition. They know taste. If people need help with nutrition (food) then we should support them in a nutritionally sound way. The items that are on whatever list folks can shop from should be based on that, and not on "how many empty calories and subsidies can we cram down their throats". Also, how about some nutritional training for the recipients of assistance.

God forbid you "teach a man to fish".

[rucky]

203. WIC has expanded into Farmer's Markets

check it out...

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/FMNP/FMNPfaqs.htm

[GOPBasher]

210. Great journal! I was too late to recommend, but here's a

symbolic recommendation!

[shenmue]

214. There is a serious problem with food in this country: the worst stuff is the cheapest.

Fast food sells things for a dollar or two per item. It's very tempting to load up on burgers and fries when you have to run out to work.

People have to try to turn to fruits and vegetables, and local markets.

[Liberal_in_LA]

216. bump! Excellent post