Likewise.

Again, I think it's important that we make the distinction between what a man or woman must do to lead a moral life and what a government must do in order to maintain a society.

In no way would I ever suggest that as Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., all religions which value charity ever stop expecting a great deal from each other as individuals. From the government though? Do we really want to impose our principles on our fellow man and force him to pay into a bureaucracy which will in turn dole out his money to the lazy, the uneducated, the dirt-stupid, the criminal, etc.?

I'm somewhat of a libertarian when it comes to this aspect of government. The government's job is to protect my life and my liberty and my stuff from my fellow citizens as well as from the government itself (to a point). Beyond that, I believe our government tries to do more than it really ought to.

I anticipate that you're going to raise the issue that by paying in and supporting these people, I'm essentially protecting my life, liberty, etc., by keeping them fed, thus not sparking some sort of insurrection, crime, etc. My response would be that our current system, one might say, is at least partially responsible for the United States having the prestigious distinction of having the highest imprisoned population per capita of any country in the world.

I would also anticipate that you might say that I don't have a cogent argument because poverty is a universal problem -- it affects the rich and the poor and the middle class in some way -- that eliminating it helps us all and keeping it hurts us.

My response to that hypothetical line of thought is that a society such as ours, based on capitalism, is going to generate rich people, middle class people and poor people. If we provide a more comfortable existence to the poor folks, it would seem to me that we would eliminate the incentive to climb the social ladder.

I think poor folks should have it hard. The harder they have it, the greater the incentive is to take charge of their own lives. Able bodied folks should be forced to work at some point. It's as simple as that.

When someone learns that they can get by essentially for an unlimited period of time by doing nothing, they'll do nothing. If they have to work to eat, I assume most will take charge of themselves. That's survival.

I recognize it's not so black and white, but I think I see things in at least fewer shades of grey than you might :)

Well, said crackhead mother should have had her children placed in foster care long ago. I would hope permenantly. Also, this woman deserves to be in prison. Society owes her justice and imprisonment.

Also, I'm not sure I'd risk society's love on a person who is such a risk. Were I the one doling out the public money, she'd have to get in line behind the people who are victims of people besides themselves.

Anyhow, I get that you're offering an extreme example.. and I agree that if this woman really wanted help, I think I personally (if it were within my means) would do so. The government though? How do we know that her pleas for help are not merely a ruse to get back onto the Health and Human Services' teet?

Health care is a different issue... but just to give you the very short answer, I do not think that health care is or should be a right in this country. Emergency room visits for things like broken legs? Sure. But the latest and greatest in cancer treatments for the homeless? Unless they're part of an experiment, I don't think so.

There are actually quite a few ways of attacking this. First of all, my "let 'em starve" comment was not directed at the mentally or physically infirm.

Past that, to take your meds or not take your meds is a personal decision. In the case of schizophrenia, I believe you'd be able to get treatment for that via Medicaid since you'd essentially be 100% disabled. Further, if that person is unable to care for themselves and/or are a danger to others, they will be institutionalized.

For less serious conditions like depression or bipolar disorder... there are many, many folks leading highly successful lives who have contended with these sorts of demons. Nothing is impossible unless the patient is bound and determined to be the victim, they can overcome.

I do appreciate that.

Now down to the nitty gritty!!!
 

Well, in my old age, I have become cynical. My "perceived reality" is our governments aren't interested in maintaining any kind of society to be inclusive of all ladders of it. It will eventually become a dichotomy: the haves and the have nots.

I find that poverty is starts in the mind. Most destituted people are poor in many ways that starts in the mind. Then it transcends into the body and finally in the soul. Most destituted are brokenhearted (part of body) because their minds are less adept (lack of educational opportunities and access), that causes them to despise themselves (no soul or spirit).

It has not been my experience to be so simple. Either-Or thinking never led anyone to climb social ladders. My best example is look at the "gansta rappers". They live in laps of luxury if they become famous, but they can lose their lives over stupidity, which looks like stuff that happens in poverty--that may be an underground sub-culture.

The only time able-bodied folks were forced to work in this country was during enslavement. I guess now, it is during imprisonment. But since simple jobs, i.e. making various license plates, are being outsourced for global "sweat shop" conditions, I guess the capitalistic market conditions are ripe?

But we already have beggars on our streets. We call them panhandlers. Right now they are adults. Are you ready to see children? And really, do you think the States are doing a bang up job with children who have to be in foster care? I have an entire case on NPR discussing what is going on with Mississippi's DSHS...

Yes, I admit, extreme example.

Folks are all in a tizzy about the harshness of Paris Hilton's sentence and she broke a major law, but fortunately did not hurt anyone including herself.

So public health is different from healthcare. Health care is like you stated, broken bones and cancer treatments. Public health deals with populations, i.e. Giving the the standards of care entities must give when one breaks a bone or is diagnosed with cancer.

Now with poor people, the issue is their poor health started when they were infants. It is not just their parents were never informed for major vaccines to go to school, HAYLE, for some populations, they just don't send their kids to school because the children need vaccinations... if these kids fail to have their full course of vaccines, they risk the illness of infection to other people. And kids get sick all the time, the way illnesses work in them is they often mutate. So that bug cannot be treated with normal antibiotics, like tuberculosis...

And the one thing about kids is they eventually grow up... So now they are adults without appropriate vaccinations OR an education.

Moreover, this issue become more relevant with the complete absence of dental care. A child who does not have dental care with prevention, will inevitably suffer dental disease. If they don't fail to get treated, their teeth rot, if their teeth rot, they don't eat properly. Healthy foods, like apples and carrots are not consumed because it hurts to eat them. Bad foods like fast foods that are soft or better yet, substance abuse which causes appetite suppression are preferably consumed...

Now, with the combination of bad foods and substance abuse has been shown to cause congestive heart failure and cancer in long-time abusers.

Our medical establishment will not make a decision not to treat. Physicians inadvertantly make those choices, but they can risk an entire career if they lack cultural competency towards populations.

This issue is about either having people live a fairly dignfied life or dying like flies as if there was genocide. The US is ill prepared to deal with that on their own soil if it were to happen in this modern day and age. However, the Native Americans may have a different viewpoint.

Yes, from outside, it is a "personal decision". But as an advocate for improved healthcare, if I haven't seen it once, I have seen it a million times, folks DO NOT take their meds properly. There are New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association articles devoted to understanding medication adherence. Even after the physician or nurse practioner tells patients and makes them recite the directives back. Patients lack full understanding of what these meds are suppose to do... Especially psychotropic drugs. And that is a fact about these disease of the mind. The drugs and treatment actually do make one feel better about oneself, but it is a puffed up feeling because this is the nature of side effects and the illness... So the person eventually stops taking the meds and the bad symptoms of his or her mental illness repeats--like a vicious cycle.

As a poor person, how are they going to understand the validity of major mental illnesses and vigilance in these medications? Complex that with a cultural taboo regarding mental illnesses generally. You should hear the crap I hear from the communities I work with...

Poverty is a vicious cycle. This is The United States of America, the land of opportunity, where through sheer hard work and determination, people can come from nothing and still achieve the American dream. However, it takes hard, hard, hard work. And I do not believe that success happens in a vaccuum.

There's stories of people coming from poverty, working hard, getting into Harvard or Yale, and becoming a CEO or a lawyer or a doctor. However, I would be willing to bet cold hard cash that every one of them can point to at least one influential person in their lives...mother, father, uncle, aunt, grandparent, teacher, coach, pastor, mentor, etc. Expectations can be powerful things. It's hard to succeed if everyone in your life has low expectations for you and don't think you're going to amount to much. If you are a child and there is absolutely no one in your life encouraging you...if every important person in your life (family, friends, teachers, etc.) all have low expectations for you, you're going to aim low. If the important people in your life have raised and taught you well and expect big things for you, you're going to aim for the stars. My parents expected me to go to college. My teachers expected me to go to college. My friends expected me to go to college. There was never a question or doubt in my mind of whether or not I was going to go to college. Having set high goals for myself and knowing that others had high expectations for me, I felt like I had to guard my future, which meant not getting mixed up with the wrong crowd, not drinking, not smoking, not doing drugs, not cutting school, not becoming a teenage mother, etc. I knew people were counting on me and I didn't want to let them down or let myself down. So I think it's really important for every child to have someone who believes in him/her and for that someone to build up the child until he/she believes in himself/herself.

A good work ethic is essential for success, and I don't believe that people are just born with a good work ethic. It's something that's learned. If a child grows up with negligent, drug-addict parents, who's there to teach that child a good work ethic? Who's there to make sure the child stays focused on succeeding in school and is not tempted astray by the lure of easy money from stealing and drug-dealing? If a child grows up always being told he/she is stupid and worthless, how is that child going to succeed? Yes, in my hypothetical situation, child services should have removed the child long ago and the parents should have been locked up, but it doesn't always happen due to overcrowding in both foster care and prisons. In my hypothetical situation, success requires an adult (teacher, coach, mentor, community leader, church leader, etc.) taking an interest and a responsibility for that child...encouraging the child, building up the child's self-esteem and self-worth, teaching the child hard work and perseverence, teaching the child the value of education, teaching the child to keep his/her eye on the big picture (becoming a docotor or a lawyer or whatever his/her dreams are), making sure the child stays on the straight and narrow (avoiding drugs, alcohol, gangs, teen pregnancy, etc.) and doesn't lose focus on his/her goals, making sure the child knows he/she is worthy of success and higher education, etc.

There definitely needs to be changes made to our current welfare system to prevent abuse. I don't know what the solution is, though. But I'm definitely against completely doing away with social services. The children are the ones that will suffer. I think there needs to be a way to ensure that food stamps are being used to feed children and not being used to feed parents' drug habits. I also think that there needs to be some kind of limitation on the length of time people can be on welfare, so people aren't just on welfare indefinitely if they are physically and mentally able to work. I think the keys to a huge societal change are children and education. If, through mentoring programs and after-school programs, one child goes from poverty to college graduate, then the cycle of poverty can broken for that child's future children and grandchildren.



I'm just realizing how rambly this post has been. Way past my bedtime. :(

Absolutely - and I would also say that for every one success, there are a 100 (or more) unsuccessful people. Add to that list of influences a caring guidance counselor which many schools do not have.

Co-sign 100%

Once again, you speak the truth. The Greeks out there who are making a difference in the lives of children and adults in this situation have taken on a wonderful and challenging task. This is why volunteer mentor programs are vital to changing the face of poverty.

Roughly 15 years ago I worked a fulltime job and was eligible for food stamps. After paying minimal rent/utilities and medical bills (I was uninsured) I subsisted on $10 a week for gas (to get to work) and food. This went on for over a year. Getting a job isn't always the answer.

Sidetracking still: That situation happened to my sister. She had 2 kids & no work experience whatsoever. Mom took them all in & between my sisters & I, we took turns watching her kids during the day so she could go to school. Now she's back on her feet & has learned a hard lesson about life.

Wow. I don't know if this is the funniest statement I've read or the most ignorant.

There are many more programs today than ever before to aid students.

It used to be you had certain grades, then you qualified for scholarships and if you did not, you paid for it yourself if you could afford to go to college.

Today scholarships abound for sports, band, cheer leading and even being a cowboy.

There are also loans or grants given by the colleges. If you keep your grades and stay in school, it is free payable only if leave school or do not keep GPA up. I saw a report a while back that should college grants that covered 1/2 - 2/3s of the yealy cost.

If college is not your place, there are vocational schools to learn a trade.

I grew up poor and had a choice, work my senior year, save money, go to college, or get a job and buy a car. I opted for college, the first in my entire family to attend college. There I washed, mopped and waxed floors for extra money.

I found out years later that my folks house $19.00 a month and were strapped for it each month with both working full time jobs. I did not know we were poor, I just figured we were like everyone else in the neighbor hood and lived with it.

So if some whine about not getting into the Law School they wanted and had to opt for a lesser one, what a shame or if someone wanted to go to a more prestigious college and couldn't, to sad.

There are programs out there for people in need if they look for them. But the problem is today is so many people use it because that is there job, not working and depleting the funds for those who do.

Do I agree with Kevin on many points, yes I do. I know people who live on the streets and want nothing more. They do not want jobs!

For the poster who opted not to have kids, there is nothing wrong with that. When I graduated from college, I was middle management for RH Macy and made $550.00 a month and my then wife made $350.00 a month. Seemed like a lot of money in the late 60's but it really wasn't but costs were cheaper then compared to now.

If some people want to find out, then they should ask and not cry about not having a job. I see help wanted signs all of the time and no takers? Why?

Next time you ae in a fast food eatery, check out the cash registars, they have pix of the products so the people do not have to read and everything is automated so they can look to see how much change is to be given back.

That's pretty impressive. I'll be happy when we get out of the diaper stage - that adds a lot to the budget. (Figure I have about 6 months left on that...) The dog food adds a hefty chunk to the budget too...he eats like a horse...but he's part of the family and good for the kids, so I suppose its worth it. :)

I could probably trim a little more out of the budget if I tried, but we've already saved so much money over spending levels from before ($700 dropped down to $250-300) that I'm not ready to scale back further yet. My husband has certain things/brands that he likes, which could be eliminated if absolutely necessary. But, since we're managing with where we are, I let him and the kids have a few splurges. ;) (I could probably get meat a little cheaper at the grocery store, but we have an amazing local butcher shop that offers excellent service. I just try to stock up when they have stuff on sale - thank god for big freezers. :) )

Speaking of produce markets/fruit stands, I have a question that's semi-on topic...I've heard that in many inner cities, there just simply isn't a place to buy fresh produce, or at least at reasonable prices. Seems like I read an article a while back which gave examples of the lengths a person (who didn't have a car) would have to go to get fresh produce. When I think about it, there aren't any large grocery stores really in downtown Toledo anymore - a person would have to somehow get out to the outlying areas to get to the big stores which might have bargain prices, or be stuck with the small quickie marts w/less selection and higher prices. I'd assume it might be the same in other cities too.

If I were in a financial position to do so, I'd open a fruit market in that area with pricing just to cover operating expenses, not turn a big profit. It scares me that there are kids in those neighborhoods who might not ever get fresh fruits and veggies b/c its either too great of an expense or hassle for the parents to obtain. :(

It means that none of us deserve God's grace or salvation. ;) We can't ever earn such a thing. Salvation is a gift we can never be worthy of, but He has given it to us just the same. (How great is that???) If we got what we really deserved, well, you know the rest! :D

And it was meant to be sarcastic, and yet so so true. ;)

Now, it is Sunday and I am stepping out of the firing line for the day. :D

I don't hate you, I asked you stop accusing me of saying anything but what I said which was anyone can go to college. I stand by it.

I have no anger, only frustration at your insistence on putting words into my mouth. I have never once typed an angry word. You seem to be getting really upset, though. :confused:

And don't speak to me condescendingly. I am older than you. "Young lady" wasn't appropriate. ;) (but , honestly, how would you know that?)

All I asked is that I be allowed my opinion even if it differs from yours, but I can see this makes you very angry. I will stop posting on the topic and let you have the thread. :) Peace?

I am just repeating the same-old same-old anyway:rolleyes: and who wants to re-read the same stuff? Lord knows I am tired of it. You can't change my mind and I can't change yours. :D

As for the PM, I don't think there was a misunderstanding. I understand where you on on the subjest, but I respectfully disagree.

P.S. Molecular Genetics??????? :eek: Holy cow! And I thought Comparative Literature was tough. :o

Sure.

They always come back.

They all float down here.

DAMMIT

Now I'm going to have "IT" flashbacks thank you very much.
http://movies.infinitecoolness.com/i...wise02_jpg.jpg
http://www.best-horror-movies.com/im...se-howling.jpg

Damnit now I'm going to picture JWithers as Pennywise. Thank YOU very much!

i understand you said somewhat and i'm pretty easy going 'bout most things, but don't bring libertarianism into this. libertarianism is not just warmed over republican beliefs for people who don't want to be bothered by the gov't when it comes to their personal habits. there IS more to it than that.

the libertarian perspective with regard to economics is pretty spelled out. and this perspective is not just 'all about you'.

/end crankiness

- m

I'm aware of what libertarianism is.

Thanks though.

I'm definitely not in agreement with the libertarian economic perspective. Laissez-faire is just not a workable ting, unless, of course, you're a big friend of monopolies and robber barons :)

i guess what i'm trying to express here is that i look at being libertarian as the same as being democrat or republican. if you don't really support their perspectives and ideals, well then don't invoke the term.

people who aren't familiar with the ideals may start to think that YOUR beliefs are representative of this particular political orientation. and frankly, we don't need that type of 'support'.

just my two cents...

- m

This is going to be a total hijack, but since I've seen pictures of Pennywise in this thread already, I don't think any further hijack could do any significant harm :)

"Democrat" and "Republican" to me do not convey any real political meaning. Nor do "conservative" or "liberal." Many times, in the name of politics, individuals who use those terms to self-describe often take up self-contradictory positions. For example, people are against abortion because life is sacred, but they're for capital punishment.

Another example is that liberals tend to be for public health care and other services which benefit the poor while at the same time supporting measures which open our borders wide to illegal immigration which has a very harmful effect on those already in poverty (illegal immigrants taking jobs which would otherwise probably go to the domestic poor).

One side of the Republican party (social conservatives) would have it be illegal to be in a same-sex relationship, adopt children into a same-sex household, forbid abortion under any circumstances, even forbid certain kinds of consensual sex in many cases... another side of the Republican Party (the libertarian wing) would tell the government to keep its nose out of citizens' bedrooms. Contrarian positions from each wing will invariably make it into the party's platform, so at the end of the day, we're left with some "clear" picture (which is anything but clear) as to what a "Republican" is. We redefine this every four years or so.

Democrats do the same thing essentially.

Due to the above sorts of examples, I think it's pretty ambiguous to represent oneself as a "Republican" or a "Democrat." Unaccompanied by other adjectives, I don't think claiming membership to either party tells us much about you. Or do you want to try to tell me that Republican Ron Paul would agree with much fellow Republican Trent Lott would have to say? Or that Barney Frank would agree with much that Dan Boren would have to say?

I think there are more than one types of libertarian out there. There are those (such as myself) who are influenced by libertarianism but haven't adopted it totally. There are others who are card carrying libertarian party members who adopt the party's view as their own.

The trouble with the term might be that it can on one hand be referring to a particular political movement/ideology while on the other hand, it might be referring to a particular party.

You're welcome. Tim Curry is scary.

Do you think of political beliefs as a "take one, take all" situation? For example, I call myself Republican, I'm registered Republican, but there are certain issues where I differ with the party platform.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I don't think anyone here thinks that no hard work should not be instituted when one truly desires something. At least I am not saying that and if my posts conveyed that message, I never intended it to be.

What I am saying is many poor people do not know these resources exist even after speaking to those options. Yes, there will have to "extra credit" or volunteer time. And yes, there are some who choose not do that. And there are also some that make their matters worse than where they started...

If one absolutely does not have any funds to make it, how will they know to go to a library first, then review it without guidance or assistance and then fall under a deadline?

Yes, we need standards and rules for people to follow. And yes, you may be a model or mentor to follow. But, do those less fortunate know that about you?

And the one thing I find about poor people, they don't like to be reminded of it. Why live in that humilation? And should that be something one should be ashamed about? And ultimately, so what? And how do you think one who is poor gets that way? Is poverty a choice?

Choices...
 

Show me how I accused you of anything but being your true self? What more can we expect from participants other than what is written on a public message board and you only gave personal anecdotal evidence as to your reasons why "anyone can go to college".

That was your reality. But, is your reality another's reality?

So, yes, what I did was QUESTIONED you and ask you what you meant by your comments. Have you answered them? And if I was of lesser mind, I found that you blamed me for questioning you. Then, you decided to slander me after I have been posting on GC for 7 years.

After that, Hayle yeah I am angry aside from that you stated some very biased stuff. Hey, but I guess I had that coming when I referred to my personal cultural reference, which I admire greatly, and that just shows your trustworthiness for any comments made in that respect especially in the AKA Ave...

As far as differing opinions. Well, my husband has a more colorful definition of how "opinions" should be viewed and they are similar to that of a body organ...

And I do not reside in the realm of stoic or strict understanding it is an occupational hazard. So, yes my mind can be changed with strong data, logical reasoning and persuasion. Most people do this tactic by communication. I am forced to do it in my career everyday.

Hey, I do not have a problem if you write to me where and why disagree with my comments and your reasons. But since you added emotional and personal language to your comments that caused you to fail to convey the true aspects of what you were trying to state. If you thought you did that, how come you use all that bolding?

Besides, Kevin explained his posts similarly and I totally disagree with some of his comments, but he never became personal, moreover, I respect him for the comments he said because he logically stated his reasons. Moreover, this issue is complex and requires communication.

And really, have you ever thought that maybe I do not comprehend what you are writing? People often read the tone from one's writing.

And I cannot make you feel condescension. All I can do is merely say something. Ultimately, you are the one who choses to interpret it and decide how you feel, then how to act on it...

VERY true. however, i'm just a bit of a purist. :) say you're liberal, say your conservative. delineate between the two on as many individual issues as ya want. just don't call yourself something if you don't actually hold to it.

- marissa

Marissa: I do absolutely hold true to MANY libertarian ideals -- just not all. I consider myself a member of the libertarian wing of the Republican party.

I don't want to be insulting or anything (and this very well may be perceived that way), but in my mind, subscribing 100% to any party agenda is akin to letting someone else think for you.

Since I'm pretty well qualified to do my own thinking, I'm going to fail any political reliability test you put in front of me. As you may have perceived, when it comes to able bodied adults who abuse our welfare system, you'll find me a tad to the right of Atilla the Hun on the political scale... cut off the money, let God sort 'em out... when it comes to impoverished kids, I'm a big pinko commie -- let the state take these kids into custody and spend bazillions of bucks making sure these kids turn out better than their parents.

I view poverty in the long term as America's most important war -- beating, or at least managing poverty is essential to our continued survival and our continued freedom. Throughout history, a wide gap between the poor and the elite (and the lack of a substantial middle class) has always meant social upheaval. As with every war, there are a variety of tactics which can be used... all with differently effective and all with their own political consequences. One thing is for certain though -- if we continue to do what is most politically expedient at this time (i.e., nothing), we'll end up with a much worse problem than we have right now. While this paragraph might look like the preface to some sort of spiel glorifying socialism, it's not.

You might imagine that I think socialism ignores the root of this problem -- that people don't want to work. We have to make them work if they want to eat, have shelter, etc. To me, it's (almost) that simple.

My dog eats one 30 lb. bag of Eukanuba a month, not too bad for a 92 pound dog!

In all fairness too, by divorcing, I eliminated one adult male to feed and only feed the kids every other week. The week that they are with their dad, I don't really cook for myself. Or, I make a big batch of pasta and eat it all week. I eat rice or cereal or ramen for dinner those weeks, so that helps!

You are right about fresh produce (although the city of Detroit has Eastern Market... the city is so big that it's quite a distance for some). Big chain grocery stores are non-existant in the city of Detroit proper and there have been news stories about how the grocery stores that are in the city are more expensive than those in the suburbs, opposite from how it should be based on income levels. I go to a store called Randazzos for my mom and so I get my stuff there too. I can walk out of there with several bags of produce for less than $15. Cucumbers there are 4/$1, green pepers are 33 cents a piece, etc. They have a lot of different fruits and veggies, so the kids and I have been trying things we wouldn't try otherwise, like mangos and star fruit.

Here's what a local ministry has going for $25:

(4) 5 oz. New York Strip Steaks
(1) 4 lb. I.Q.F. Chicken Thighs
(1) 40 oz. Beef & Bean Burritos
(1) 28 oz. Banquet Beef & Noodle Dinner
(1) 2 lb. Breaded Frying Chicken
(1) 1 lb. Ground Beef
(1) 12 oz. Pepperoni Pizza Sticks
(1) 2 lb. Popcorn Chicken
(1) 1 lb. Bean Soup Mix
(1) 8 oz. Biscuit Mix
(1) 7.5 oz. Mac & Cheese
(1) 12 ct. Corn Tortillas
(1) 26 oz. Pasta Sauce
(1) 16 oz. Pasta
(1) 24 oz. Hash Brown Potatoes
(1) 16 oz. Mixed Vegetables
(1) Dessert Item

When my wife's father was disabled, divorced and dependent on the government, he did just fine. Even lived with cancer for several years on this sort of stuff.

omg i love those co-op buying situations. we have a few local churches that do that and i think its GREAT! i just wish more groups would get in on that...

-m

im back from the weekend, what the heck happened to the original topic? lol

in re: to your list above, kevin, none of that food is necessarily "healthy" (please, any health care professionals correct me if im wrong). i see a loooot of sodium and carb laced food! which goes back to the original problem of yeah, you can eat for $21, but not well/healthy.

booooooooo on original topics. ha!

as for the foods, yes they're carb/sodium laced but at least its not fast food. the co-op clubs around here also include fresh fruits and veggies, but mostly cause they're buying from local farms too.

- m

So you're saying that we don't only owe lazy people free food in exchange for sitting on their asses.. but we also owe them healthy, expensive, luxurious food? Nice.

Healthy food is a luxury, not a right. Poor people don't get to have luxuries -- and yes, in this case, they'll lead shorter lives (which is probably better for society anyhow... shaving an extra 10-20 years off of their lives will save us all bundles of cash). I don't think that's intentional -- but it's certainly a fringe benefit.

You might raise the issue of children.. well, I do think we ought to be doing more in our schools to ensure that at least there, they get healthy food.

The trouble is that schools often have to choose between feeding their students a healthy diet and feeding their students enough calories to keep them from becoming malnourished. Further, even if the parents did have the $, they'd probably spend it on junk anyhow. Junk is easier to prepare and generally, when kids are faced with the choice between a taco town taco and an apple, the kids are going for choice "A."

did i just read that right?? let me see if i got this straight...poor, unhealthy people who eat bad food die early, and that is a fringe benefit for everyone else who pays taxes???

:( healthy food is not a luxury. organic, radiated apples grown on only 3 trees in america is a luxury. a bag of salad or a banana is not. free range certified corn-fed beef is a luxury. a pack of chicken hot dogs is not.

that has got to be one of the coldest things ive ever heard! hell, why feed children healthy foods? i guess the earlier we kill them off too the better society is!

:mad: pardon my sarcasm everyone, but that just wasn't right!

Healthy foods cost more.

Are you suggesting that expensive things which aren't 100% necessary to get the job done are somehow not a luxury? How is it that you define luxury?

As for being cold... I think being cold is the only way to define policy. We have a limited supply of money. We should recognize that we can't do everything we want. Therefore, we have to prioritize. Making sure lazy people live long lives comes in at the bottom of my list.

How much cheaper for us all is it going to be if that lazy person dies at 50 of a massive coronary as compared to living to the age of 85 in a state-run nursing home? The difference is probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of our tax dollars per person. I view these people as leaches. Society is better off with them gone -- either they find work and can afford healthy, luxurious food or they sit on their asses and die young. It's still their choice.

Why is that?

I don't even want to get into the grocery store/fresh produce issue in the Hill District here, except to say it's a freaking disgrace and "the grocery store was looted in the MLK riots" is not a valid excuse. :mad:

It costs more to bring to the market because quite a bit of it goes bad on the shelves as opposed to packaged and preserved foods which once placed on the shelves will generally sell (eventually).

Healthy food does not necessarily equal fresh vegetables and fruit. Just because something has a preservative or two in it does not make it unhealthy.

I actually did a little looking around. Apparently, there are programs out there which can help people make good decisions while remaining faithful to their budgets.

Like all other such programs though, they must be taken advantage of in order to do any good for people. The government cannot force people to eat healthy food or to feed it to their kids. As long as the kids aren't showing any outward signs of being malnourished, it's tough for the government to know when to intervene.

I totally agree, but then again I compete in Figure/Fitness, so I'm not really a good person to ask. But none of that stuff would not get me "stage ready" (i.e. none of it is considered "Eating Clean".). Bring on the skinless chicken breasts and the sweet potatoes, baby!

Most likely, it's because the things that make food 'unhealthy' also allow it to be mass-produced easily and efficiently. It's easy to find a vat of man-made fat, or factory-farm out a ton of crappy foods - and more cost-effective.

Everyone wants free-range chicken until they realize it costs 300% more to produce.