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

[UGAalum94]

I don't know that for sure, but it seems to me that we've been in need of reviewing how the gov't subsidizes food for low income people for a while.

In previous, less sedentary days, (when kids would have been involved in active play, teenagers in manual labor, and adults in manual labor plus maybe walking more for transportation), school lunches and food stamps and WIC funds were all set up to guarantee a lot of calories. High fat foods were an easy way to do that.

Now, we live very differently, and our big problem isn't starvation as much as obesity and nutritionally empty calories. It seems like "they" have started to review this with school lunches, so maybe, they will follow through with food stamps and other forms of food aid.

About politics, here's the thing as I see it: I think it's possible to conclude that the government is never going to successfully make everything equal. The societies that have made economic equality the most important government function haven't, in my opinion, worked out that well. On some level, you have to try to take care of all people, but you can't ever make it so good for people who can't or don't work that not working becomes as attractive as working. We have a moral duty to our fellow man, but the government may be the least effective and most destructive way to deliver on that duty.

So, maybe the government keeps you from starving, and if you will stay off drugs and avoid violence and take your medicine for mental illness, should help you find basic shelter. Maybe the gov't should provide basic preventative care, so we cut down on the expenses for emergency services later. But we can't really set up a system where the gov't provides everything for everyone or the whole thing will go under. And we can't keep treating people who continually make destructive decisions as if they aren't responsible for those decisions because what they do hurts other people. Kevin sounds mean spirited in these debates, but some of the rest of you seem downright delusional about what the gov't can actually do for people.

[JWithers]

I agree that often times, poor personal choices put people in the position to need assistance for food, etc.

However, children are not responsible for those choices made by their parents. But if the only food that these kids are fed is laced with chemicals, preservatives, sodium, fat and zero vitamins and minerals, nor dietary fiber, these kids will perform poorly at school, have more health problems (and frankly, taxpayers like myself so not want to pay for their medical bills) and fall behind in general.

All moral obligation to fellow man aside, it just seems like if I were running a company(hello; government?), I would want my employees happy and healthy and productive. It would save me money in the end to prevent a problem, rather than fix it once it occurs.

Again, people see this obesity epidemic and think that we are the best-fed country in the world. Well, most caloric intake does not = best fed. Some of these kids are fat maybe, but certainly not healthy or well fed. I guess the same for adults in the lowest SE groups.

I agree with Kevin on personal choice leading to a rough life. But children shouldn't have to pay that price and as a taxpayer, I would like to see my dollars go for nutrionally sound food programs, not for 'how much cheap crap can I buy" WIC programs.