Lawmakers Find $21 a Week Doesn't Buy a Lot of Groceries

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Did you notice the part of the article that said There are more working people today getting food stamps than six years ago? What do you suggest those people do?

I would first want to ask what a "working person" is. Democrats often refer to "working people" as anyone who is not rich.

So do I doubt that more people get food stamps now than 6 years ago? Nope. We have a larger population now than 6 years ago.

6 years is a pretty arbitrary figure unless you're trying to somehow show that Bush is the cause for people signing up for welfare benefits (otherwise, I couldn't imagine why 6 years would be relevant unless 7 years ago, there were more people using food stamps than there are today).

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I would first want to ask what a "working person" is. Democrats often refer to "working people" as anyone who is not rich.

So do I doubt that more people get food stamps now than 6 years ago? Nope. We have a larger population now than 6 years ago.

6 years is a pretty arbitrary figure unless you're trying to somehow show that Bush is the cause for people signing up for welfare benefits (otherwise, I couldn't imagine why 6 years would be relevant unless 7 years ago, there were more people using food stamps than there are today).

Ok...let's not make it into a name calling thing...Bush is not a point in this...fact of the matter is, food stamps and the issues arising from it has been a thorn in the side of many a president since it's inception in the late 1930's

Reagan tried to make cutbacks in the 80s and Clinton instituted welfare to work programs in the 90s.

But now, for the few changes and buget increases that they have made, someone is starting to wakeup to the fact that the money the put into this program doesn't help the poor eat an adequate amount and variety of food.

Let's face it, the policy has failed because where it was supposed to work for the better good in emergency situations, it caused more dependency than anything, and yanking the rug from under it would be seen and a drastic and inhuman way to deal with the situation....


damned if you do...damned if you dont.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Ok...let's not make it into a name calling thing...Bush is not a point in this...fact of the matter is, food stamps and the issues arising from it has been a thorn in the side of many a president since it's inception in the late 1930's

Who is name calling? I was simply searching for a definition for the term "working people" -- a definition Democrats often attribute to people who actually don't work. I would still love someone to tell me what "working people" are for the purposes of GP's statement.

Reagan tried to make cutbacks in the 80s and Clinton instituted welfare to work programs in the 90s.

They didn't go anywhere near far enough.

But now, for the few changes and buget increases that they have made, someone is starting to wakeup to the fact that the money the put into this program doesn't help the poor eat an adequate amount and variety of food.

Show me some starving poor folks.. like the kind you see in 3rd world countries. Then you can make this claim. The fact is that in America, our "poor" have an astounding rate of obesity. Here are some other fun facts about American "poor" courtesy of the Heritage Foundation (their facts were obtained from the Census Bureau):

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

• Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Let's face it, the policy has failed because where it was supposed to work for the better good in emergency situations, it caused more dependency than anything, and yanking the rug from under it would be seen and a drastic and inhuman way to deal with the situation....

I agree. I don't claim to be an expert in solving this problem. I'd like to see a lifetime cap instituted on the amount of benefits anyone may receive over their lifetime. I'm not sure of the feasibility of programs like the old T.V.A. or W.P.A. of the great depression, but I'd sure like to see someone look into 'em.

All you ever hear are stopgaps being discussed -- never solutions. Never ultimatums for people who simply choose to be poor. If they can make it on $21/week. Fine. If they could make it on less, I say we cut 'em back.

damned if you do...damned if you dont.

Wrong attitude

[DaemonSeid]

clarity on a few points:

Name calling: not the working people...I meant to refer to blaming it on Bush...my bad....I was saying that as a reference that he is not the one who has the problem....he inherited it....hehe.


Show you some starving poor: I tell you what...come to Baltimore...drive 2 miles east or west of the Inner Harbor...Get out of your car....take a walk....note the quality and types of stores in the area as opposed to where you live. Note the subpar quality of eating establishments...note the number of abandoned houses and the possibilty that someone is living in one now...do this for a few hrs and then go home....get on your knees and thank whoever it is you pray to that you don't live like that...

Kevin I was raised in that area and can tell you 20 years it was NOT like that...I moved away 10 years ago and when I came back....this was what I saw...it's a drastic 180 away from the growth that was going on in the 80s and 90s....gentrification my friend.

...and if 46% own then the other portion rent and another portion of THAT are homeless....pie charts mean nothing when you are standing on a corner wishing you had even pie crumbs.


You wanna see starving people....come on down to downtown Washington DC....17th and I streets...RIGHT BEHIND Gee Dub's house...let's you and I take a walk thru the park where I go to lunch sometimes and I will let you stand and count how many homeless and starving people are crowding the benches....heck...I don't have pocket change anymore cuz I am giving it to an old dude in hopes that he gets some food....

After work...let's take a walk from here to Chinatown and let's count again how many homeless poor are sitting out here trying to get a meal not 5 blocks away from the tourists visiting the mall....

All this first and and trust me afterwards you will wake up thankful ddaily that you have what you have.

Most of these people who have a roof over thier heads are the same ones that have no power in ther homes and either die or burnt out because since they cant afford the rising price of energy had to resort to other means to keeping warm.



and the damned if you do damned if you don't

it's not my attitude...that is just the way things are.....

that is just the big problem with the policy....there is no right way in solving it and removing it without upsetting a whole population of people

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If they can subsist on this minimal $21/week, that's good enough for me. In nearly every case I've seen here, soldiers, etc., the $21/week is supplemental to their other income, so saying they're eating on $21/week is misleading at best.

so do you not have other expenses besides food? or am i the only person? (btw this isn't personal and i'm not TRYING to be rude or over critical of you kevin but as far as i can see you're the only person really arguing in the other direction)

granted there is most likely OTHER income, but i also know what its like to have more bills than money in a month. and i'm nowhere near 'poor'. labeling $21/week as misleading IMO is just another way to be able to ignore the numbers and the problem. $21/week for food IS a reality for more than a handful of people in this country. that is a problem.

i think people are also ignoring the concept of food quality. that article was pretty good about addressing the lack of whole foods, fruits and veggies, milk, organic foods, and even semi-healthy options. poor people and people recieving food stamps don't have the luxury of healthy foods. this is a HUGE problem. people wonder why kids and adults in this country are overweight and obese (and don't say 'exercise' if you can afford to be a member of a gym or can work out in a safe neighborhood - i really don't want to hear it). quality of diet is a huge factor. when people can eat off the dollar menu at mcdonalds and be full for SIGNIFICANTLY less than they could if they were paying to buy healthy foods at a grocery store, there's a problem. and this is a huge problem when this is how children are being fed.

then again i'm a fan of not judging other people and the world based on MY situation in life.

- m

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

so do you not have other expenses besides food? or am i the only person? (btw this isn't personal and i'm not TRYING to be rude or over critical of you kevin but as far as i can see you're the only person really arguing in the other direction)

granted there is most likely OTHER income, but i also know what its like to have more bills than money in a month. and i'm nowhere near 'poor'. labeling $21/week as misleading IMO is just another way to be able to ignore the numbers and the problem. $21/week for food IS a reality for more than a handful of people in this country. that is a problem.

i think people are also ignoring the concept of food quality. that article was pretty good about addressing the lack of whole foods, fruits and veggies, milk, organic foods, and even semi-healthy options. poor people and people recieving food stamps don't have the luxury of healthy foods. this is a HUGE problem. people wonder why kids and adults in this country are overweight and obese (and don't say 'exercise' if you can afford to be a member of a gym or can work out in a safe neighborhood - i really don't want to hear it). quality of diet is a huge factor. when people can eat off the dollar menu at mcdonalds and be full for SIGNIFICANTLY less than they could if they were paying to buy healthy foods at a grocery store, there's a problem. and this is a huge problem when this is how children are being fed.

then again i'm a fan of not judging other people and the world based on MY situation in life.

- m

HERE HERE Squirelly!

[DaemonSeid]

Kevin...and while u are at it....if you ever made that trek into Baltimore or DC....for each and every person you see...

For each reformed or down on thier luck junkie I want you to look them in the eye and tell them get a job

For each abused adult who can't get medical help I want you to look them in the eye and tell them get a job

For someone who is so infirm they can't get a job I want you to look them in the eye and tell them get a job


For each able bodied Katrina victim displaced this far north I want you to look them in the eye and tell them get a job

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

so do you not have other expenses besides food? or am i the only person? (btw this isn't personal and i'm not TRYING to be rude or over critical of you kevin but as far as i can see you're the only person really arguing in the other direction)

I think the answer is obvious. Of course there are other expenses.. but thank God there are other government programs! If 97% of poor households can own color TV's, I guess they aren't starving.

granted there is most likely OTHER income, but i also know what its like to have more bills than money in a month. and i'm nowhere near 'poor'. labeling $21/week as misleading IMO is just another way to be able to ignore the numbers and the problem. $21/week for food IS a reality for more than a handful of people in this country. that is a problem.

Right. They should have jobs and therefore, much more money to spend.

I think people are also ignoring the concept of food quality. that article was pretty good about addressing the lack of whole foods, fruits and veggies, milk, organic foods, and even semi-healthy options. poor people and people recieving food stamps don't have the luxury of healthy foods.

And you think we owe people luxury foods just because they exist? Screw that.

this is a HUGE problem. people wonder why kids and adults in this country are overweight and obese (and don't say 'exercise' if you can afford to be a member of a gym or can work out in a safe neighborhood - i really don't want to hear it).

For kids, there are sports.. those are free if played in most schools.

Otherwise, get a job.

quality of diet is a huge factor. when people can eat off the dollar menu at mcdonalds and be full for SIGNIFICANTLY less than they could if they were paying to buy healthy foods at a grocery store, there's a problem. and this is a huge problem when this is how children are being fed.

True. Parents shouldn't have kids they can't afford to feed. That is why we have abortions and adoptions and contraceptives.

then again i'm a fan of not judging other people and the world based on MY situation in life.

Yeah, I guess expecting other people to value themselves enough to be responsible for feeding themselves is expecting a little much...

[DaemonSeid]

you know...u should stop...that plumber's crack is turning into a full moon.

And when you moon like that you really start to show how ignorant you are of other people's misfortune.

[susan314]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

i think people are also ignoring the concept of food quality. that article was pretty good about addressing the lack of whole foods, fruits and veggies, milk, organic foods, and even semi-healthy options. poor people and people recieving food stamps don't have the luxury of healthy foods. this is a HUGE problem.

I'm not jumping into the food stamps "good" vs. food stamps "bad" argument, but I will say this...most people in this country overpay for groceries and, if they had the proper tools/education about how the grocery stores run their specials, they could spend a lot less.

I spend $250-300 a month at the grocery store for 4 people + a 65 pound dog for everything. That includes cleaning supplies, paper products, diapers/Pull Ups, dog food, dog treats, feminine products, shampoo, soap, razor blades/shaving cream...everything I buy. I could probably spend less, but I insist on having fresh produce in the house at all times and I shop at a specialty meat market for most of our meat products.

(I'm not kidding when I say that I indulge in fresh produce - in my house, right at this immediate moment...when I haven't even done my normal shopping yet this week...I have the following fresh fruits and veggies: broccoli, carrots, cucumbers, tomatoes, potatoes, celery, zuchini, strawberries, pineapple, grapes, oranges, apples, and bananas.)

You have to learn to beat the grocery stores at their own game.

[JWithers]

Originally Posted by susan314

I'm not jumping into the food stamps "good" vs. food stamps "bad" argument, but I will say this...most people in this country overpay for groceries and, if they had the proper tools/education about how the grocery stores run their specials, they could spend a lot less.

I spend $250-300 a month at the grocery store for 4 people + a 65 pound dog for everything. That includes cleaning supplies, paper products, diapers/Pull Ups, dog food, dog treats, feminine products, shampoo, soap, razor blades/shaving cream...everything I buy. I could probably spend less, but I insist on having fresh produce in the house at all times and I shop at a specialty meat market for most of our meat products.

(I'm not kidding when I say that I indulge in fresh produce - in my house, right at this immediate moment...when I haven't even done my normal shopping yet this week...I have the following fresh fruits and veggies: broccoli, carrots, cucumbers, tomatoes, potatoes, celery, zuchini, strawberries, pineapple, grapes, oranges, apples, and bananas.)

You have to learn to beat the grocery stores at their own game.

LOL. I am the queen of cheap. We have a store called Aldi here and they have very nice produce for MUCH less than the bigger chains. I pay 2.99 for a three pack of red, yellow and green bell peppers when just ONE would be more than that at the other groceries. Broccoli crowns are .99! My husband makes fun of me, but when we can pay for our beach house in full b/c of my frugality, we will see who is laughing! I don't buy processed foods full of crap, only 'real' food and my kids eat and drink food that is actually good for them. AND I do it on a self-imposed TIGHT budget. I would rather spend some time to save money and be able to have the things that matter more to my family!

Again, GOOD CHOICES!