Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   New study claims that a quarter of the people in Mississippi can't afford food, which, when you think about it, is a bit of a self-correcting problem   ( huffingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Sad, Mississippians, Feeding America, Electronic Benefit Transfer, cartons  
•       •       •

3525 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:23 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



208 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-27 08:47:41 AM  
So we can expect an upswing in crime statistics from these states?
 
2014-03-27 09:33:25 AM  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.
 
2014-03-27 09:49:52 AM  
The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-03-27 10:08:31 AM  
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167774/mississippians-struggles-afford-foo d -continue-2013.aspx#1

I may be experiencing an optical illusion here but WV and LA do not seem to be the same color although both have the same rates of hunger. I'm also a little surprised by NM since it has such insane rates of poverty.

Depressing stats are depressing though.
 
2014-03-27 10:26:11 AM  
Then everyone starves, because the poors are the ones harvesting the food.

BobTheAngryFlowerAtlasShrugged.jpg
 
2014-03-27 10:26:20 AM  

bdub77: The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

[img.fark.net image 387x555]


So this is their final solution?
 
2014-03-27 10:26:35 AM  
WAY TO GO FARTBONGO! WAY TO STICK IT TO THE MAN.
 
2014-03-27 10:27:44 AM  
Yet it's also one of the fattest states..
 
2014-03-27 10:28:02 AM  
Welcome to North Korea
 
2014-03-27 10:29:54 AM  

Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.



I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.
 
2014-03-27 10:30:54 AM  

CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..


I was thinking that was the self correcting problem subby referenced, but then I remembered just how cheap shiatty food is.
 
2014-03-27 10:32:08 AM  
And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.
 
2014-03-27 10:32:10 AM  
While poor Mississippi families will surely be affected by the farm bill, which will cut $9 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next decade, some experts say that inefficiencies in the way SNAP is run in Mississippi is of paramount concern.

img.pandawhale.comView Full Size
 
2014-03-27 10:32:59 AM  

Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


Please tell all your friends.  Because they seem to be moving here in droves.
 
2014-03-27 10:33:32 AM  
is there any chance that these are the same people that think that the poor fema response was obamas fault
 
2014-03-27 10:39:25 AM  
"Teach a man to fish, he eats for a day...Feed a man to the fishes, and he never bothers you for food again." --Confucius
 
2014-03-27 10:40:25 AM  
I'm apparently a bastard, because I laughed at subby's headline.
 
2014-03-27 10:41:47 AM  
Oh submittard you missed the real self correcting problem by that much.

Interestingly enough, there is also a higher instance of obesity in Mississippi than in any other state.


profilebrand.comView Full Size
 
2014-03-27 10:41:57 AM  
New study claims that a quarter of the people in Mississippi can't afford food, which, when you think about it, is a bit of a self-correcting problem

No, it's not.  We will still feed them and make certain that there are always poor people around.
 
2014-03-27 10:44:25 AM  

Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


An anarchist revolt? What, you want to make it even more of a hellhole?
And WTF does Obama have to do with how Mississippi is run? He can't magically put himself in charge of the state and fix all it's problems. He can pretty much just make suggestions to the state government, which would be promptly ignored to "stick it to obummer".
 
2014-03-27 10:46:02 AM  

AngryDragon: bdub77: The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

[img.fark.net image 387x555]

So this is their final solution?


It's more of a modest proposal.
 
2014-03-27 10:46:15 AM  

FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.


Do you actually believe that obesity and poor diet are not linked?
 
2014-03-27 10:48:31 AM  

FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.


Except that the cheapest food is also the shiattiest. So the people who are poor, but still CAN afford food, are eating McDonalds or shiat they buy at the dollar store, because they can't afford fresh food.
 
2014-03-27 10:48:33 AM  

trappedspirit: New study claims that a quarter of the people in Mississippi can't afford food, which, when you think about it, is a bit of a self-correcting problem

No, it's not.  We will still feed them and make certain that there are always poor people around.


Interesting phrasing. There are more poor people in the world than rich. But that's the nature of the universe. There is only a certain amount of resources and those who have the most of those resources are the 'rich'. Doesn't matter what the resource is. Food, water, money, oil- whatever. The Western US is poor in water, for example.
 
2014-03-27 10:49:10 AM  

TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.


It also has one of the lowest unemployment rates and costs of living.  I'd rather dig a ditch in Texas than suckle the government teat in a frozen hellhole like Minnesota.  Cali wouldn't be bad though...I could definitely suckle some teats there.
 
2014-03-27 10:49:42 AM  
Let the eat cake

wait...apparently they do
 
2014-03-27 10:50:36 AM  

ginandbacon: FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.

Do you actually believe that obesity and poor diet are not linked?


I missed where the study said that they couldn't afford "healthy food".  If it's in there, I retract my statement and apologize for the grievous harm it caused.
 
2014-03-27 11:00:05 AM  

FLMountainMan: ginandbacon: FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.

Do you actually believe that obesity and poor diet are not linked?

I missed where the study said that they couldn't afford "healthy food".  If it's in there, I retract my statement and apologize for the grievous harm it caused.


They can afford to eat crap for 25 days out of the month and then they go hungry. They are obese because they eat crap. Is that hard to comprehend?
 
2014-03-27 11:03:00 AM  
FLMountainMan:
I missed where the study said that they couldn't afford "healthy food".  If it's in there, I retract my statement and apologize for the grievous harm it caused.

FTA:

Interestingly enough, there is also a higher instance of obesity in Mississippi than in any other state. According to Gallup, 35.4 percent of residents were obese in 2013.

The lack of healthy food ... is one of the reasons you have very poor people who are obese. It is because they're not able to afford nutritious and high protein food," Ross Fraser, spokesperson for hunger-relief charity Feeding America, told 24/7 Wall Street last September.
 
2014-03-27 11:05:22 AM  

CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..


As the article pointed out, because the cheap food is the high carb food that has little nutritional value but lots of calories. Science is really really hard, I know, but you should really look into it.

Many of the poor people in the US have the highest obesity rates, this has been known for years and it's because of the reason I pointed out. It's more fun to feel superior to poor and fat people though, right?
 
2014-03-27 11:06:04 AM  

LordJiro: Except that the cheapest food is also the shiattiest.


In terms of most fattening or least nutritious? Because I don't see foie gras on many fast food menus.
 
2014-03-27 11:09:22 AM  

Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


Up yours, you know-nothing from north of Interstate-10.

Yankees.  Sheesh.
 
2014-03-27 11:09:43 AM  

FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.


Seriously? Cheap food is high calorie and low nutritional value. Obesity is a huge problem for the poor in America because the food we supply for them is stuff like peanut butter, cheese, etc.

Where the hell have people been getting their information from that this isn't common knowledge yet?
 
2014-03-27 11:11:44 AM  
They have high obesity rates among the poor. Crappy food is cheaper than good food (or so they think). What they really need to do is teach these people that healthy food can be bought for cheap and restrict junk food items that can be bought with entitlements. If for some reason people cannot qualify for entitlements, social services should do a better job of connecting people with community resources to help them: food banks and other resources can really help out. This should help the people who truly have issues obtaining enough food to get what they need. The resources are out there but many people don't know how to access them or how to manage their limited resources to get the most bang for their buck.
 
2014-03-27 11:11:45 AM  

FLMountainMan: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

It also has one of the lowest unemployment rates and costs of living.  I'd rather dig a ditch in Texas than suckle the government teat in a frozen hellhole like Minnesota.  Cali wouldn't be bad though...I could definitely suckle some teats there.



Depends on where you are living and what you can do.  It's a fine place to live if you have education, skills, a job lined up where you're at, etc.  But if you're a poor immigrant (or a child of them) without much of any of those, there's not much of a helping hand up or otherwise.

Personally, I don't like the idea of permanent underclasses.  There should be at least enough services to help elderly people get to their appointments and be decently taken caren of, and for children of poverty to rise up.
 
2014-03-27 11:12:34 AM  

ginandbacon: FLMountainMan: ginandbacon: FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.

Do you actually believe that obesity and poor diet are not linked?

I missed where the study said that they couldn't afford "healthy food".  If it's in there, I retract my statement and apologize for the grievous harm it caused.

They can afford to eat crap for 25 days out of the month and then they go hungry. They are obese because they eat crap. Is that hard to comprehend?


It's OK because they all have health insurance now.
 
2014-03-27 11:13:20 AM  

sat1va: FLMountainMan:
I missed where the study said that they couldn't afford "healthy food".  If it's in there, I retract my statement and apologize for the grievous harm it caused.

FTA:

Interestingly enough, there is also a higher instance of obesity in Mississippi than in any other state. According to Gallup, 35.4 percent of residents were obese in 2013.

The lack of healthy food ... is one of the reasons you have very poor people who are obese. It is because they're not able to afford nutritious and high protein food," Ross Fraser, spokesperson for hunger-relief charity Feeding America, told 24/7 Wall Street last September.


I think it's a bit easier to point to affordability of healthy food than the reality of culturally bad stuff in the south. Fried food, barbecue, meals heavy on red meats, excessive use of butter and oils, and an abject lack of nutrition education. I have friends in the south who *still* serve their kids fried eggs, bacon, and grits every morning because they think that it is a healthy breakfast. While affordability is part of the problem, I think it gets scapegoated a bit too much because of its convenience and cultural sensitivity... nobody wants to insult southern cuisine (because it's f'n good), so they go on pretending that you can have that kind of food for every meal and somehow end up healthy.
 
2014-03-27 11:14:57 AM  

TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.


Um, which Texas are you talking about?  Texas doesn't need income tax - it taxes in other ways.  Texas has beau coup money, and more social services and public transportation than MOST other states.
 
2014-03-27 11:15:07 AM  

TheDirtyNacho: Personally, I don't like the idea of permanent underclasses.  There should be at least enough services to help elderly people get to their appointments and be decently taken caren of, and for children of poverty to rise up.


Yeah but socialism is a dirty word. Unless the US Military or the NFL does it.
 
2014-03-27 11:16:44 AM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..

As the article pointed out, because the cheap food is the high carb food that has little nutritional value but lots of calories. Science is really really hard, I know, but you should really look into it.

Many of the poor people in the US have the highest obesity rates, this has been known for years and it's because of the reason I pointed out. It's more fun to feel superior to poor and fat people though, right?


We need to teach them that it is possible to eat healthy on a very limited budget. My elderly patients are frequently very poor and with limited funds; they are obese and eat diets that contribute to their chronic health problems. The first step in correcting these problems is teaching them how to eat healthier on their budget; I imagine that the obese poor are in a similar situation. Education regarding diet and budgeting might go a long way in helping them; maybe include this as a requirement in order to obtain SNAP or other food assistance. Just a thought.
 
2014-03-27 11:16:52 AM  

FLMountainMan: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

It also has one of the lowest unemployment rates and costs of living.  I'd rather dig a ditch in Texas than suckle the government teat in a frozen hellhole like Minnesota.  Cali wouldn't be bad though...I could definitely suckle some teats there.


Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-depe nd ent-government_n_5035877.html

So apparently, you'd rather suckle the government teat and be poor, hot, and miserable than be cold. We have coats you know, and gloves, and hats. We do tend to make fun of people who aren't educated and like to speak their minds about how to fix things, so maybe you wouldn't fit in.
 
2014-03-27 11:18:09 AM  

Nadie_AZ: There is only a certain amount of resources


Yeah, like software.  Whoever has the most software is rich.
 
2014-03-27 11:20:11 AM  

MooseBayou: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

Um, which Texas are you talking about?  Texas doesn't need income tax - it taxes in other ways.  Texas has beau coup money, and more social services and public transportation than MOST other states.


True in the metro areas, but our state's size makes it very difficult to access these services in distant and rural areas. Some counties are as big as small states;In those areas local private charity tends to pick up the slack.
 
2014-03-27 11:20:18 AM  
It's all those fat people eating up all the food.
 
2014-03-27 11:21:52 AM  
And why does it show a burly Tejano daintily drinking a bottle of water?
 
2014-03-27 11:22:52 AM  

ginandbacon: FLMountainMan: ginandbacon: FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.

Do you actually believe that obesity and poor diet are not linked?

I missed where the study said that they couldn't afford "healthy food".  If it's in there, I retract my statement and apologize for the grievous harm it caused.

They can afford to eat crap for 25 days out of the month and then they go hungry. They are obese because they eat crap. Is that hard to comprehend?


Only when it contradicts the point that you were originally trying to make.

/Makes sense to me
 
2014-03-27 11:23:41 AM  

bdub77: The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

[img.fark.net image 387x555]


img4.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size
 
2014-03-27 11:26:05 AM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..

As the article pointed out, because the cheap food is the high carb food that has little nutritional value but lots of calories. Science is really really hard, I know, but you should really look into it.

Many of the poor people in the US have the highest obesity rates, this has been known for years and it's because of the reason I pointed out. It's more fun to feel superior to poor and fat people though, right?


The implication of the headline that people might starve because they "can't afford food".

Which is bullshiat, because they are getting enough calories.  More than enough, in fact.

Now it might not be healthiest kind of food, but it is food that will keep you from starving.  And if you go hungry for a day or two or three at the end of the month, well, that's what fat is for:  To store calories to bridge the gap between meals when times are hard.

I'm not going to get worked up about a fat person talking about how they don't have much to eat for a couple of days until they get their check*.

And I say that as a fat person.

Now, you show me a gaunt person who is obviously suffering from malnutrition due to lack of caloric intake that isn't voluntary, and we'll talk.

*Payroll or welfare, doesn't matter
 
2014-03-27 11:26:29 AM  
Y'all want gravy with them there taters?
 
2014-03-27 11:26:48 AM  
Additionally, Mississippi is the only state that distributes the SNAP packages for women, children and infants at state-run distribution centers. Almost 90 percent of the counties there have just one distribution center. Other states allow SNAP members to collect their food with more convenient EBT cards.


They intentionally make it difficult for the poor. The party of small government doesn't mind paying a government worker a salary to interview poor people about being poor.
 
2014-03-27 11:27:26 AM  

tricycleracer: AngryDragon: bdub77: The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

[img.fark.net image 387x555]

So this is their final solution?

It's more of a modest proposal.


dvddrive-in.comView Full Size

You damn dirty ape!

No, wait ...
 
2014-03-27 11:30:40 AM  
Also?  Who keeps perpetuating the notion that 'fast-food' is cheap?  I can get a pound of ground beef for about $5 here in NJ.  Potatoes are dirt (pardon the pun) cheap.  Store-Brand burger Rolls?  6 for a $1.  Which means if I take the time to cut the taters into fries and do them in a little vegetable oil, I can serve a family of 4 a "quarter-pounder", and large fries for about $8.  What would that cost at McD's?  I'm guessing around $20.

/  throw in another couple pennies if ya want cheese.
//  salt to taste instead of eating heaps of it.
/// fast-food ain't cheap.
 
2014-03-27 11:33:31 AM  

CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..


Poor people eats junk (cheaper) and gets fat, and they also lacks access to proper medical care sometimes needed to lose weight.

It's not a "yet", there is a direct cause and effect, more at 11.
 
2014-03-27 11:35:48 AM  

FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.


See my post above. Is this really such a hard concept to understand that 2 people within the first few posts will make the same mistake?
 
2014-03-27 11:38:26 AM  

dittybopper: The implication of the headline that people might starve because they "can't afford food".

Which is bullshiat, because they are getting enough calories.  More than enough, in fact.

Now it might not be healthiest kind of food, but it is food that will keep you from starving.  And if you go hungry for a day or two or three at the end of the month, well, that's what fat is for:  To store calories to bridge the gap between meals when times are hard.

I'm not going to get worked up about a fat person talking about how they don't have much to eat for a couple of days until they get their check*.

And I say that as a fat person.

Now, you show me a gaunt person who is obviously suffering from malnutrition due to lack of caloric intake that isn't voluntary, and we'll talk.

*Payroll or welfare, doesn't matter


Sorta. ER visits to treat hypoglycemia show a monthly cycle, rising at the end of the month in a way that, say, appendicitis visits don't. So some nontrivial number of folks aren't able to ride out the shortage with fat.

As a fellow fatty, I know it's hard as hell to get your body to start actually burning the stuff instead of just stockpiling more or waiting for more calories to come in.

I figure there's some interplay there - the pervasive sense of financial insecurity driving instincts to eat up while you can.
 
2014-03-27 11:39:29 AM  

mayIFark: FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.

See my post above. Is this really such a hard concept to understand that 2 people within the first few posts will make the same mistake?


Porkitude, like poverty, has a special status in America as a moral failing.
 
2014-03-27 11:42:38 AM  

trappedspirit: Nadie_AZ: There is only a certain amount of resources

Yeah, like software.  Whoever has the most software is rich.


Software is not the resource, it's the product. The copyright of the software is the resource.
 
2014-03-27 11:42:59 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Porkitude, like poverty, has a special status in America as a moral failing.


Sloth is one of the 7 deadly.
 
2014-03-27 11:44:52 AM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Also?  Who keeps perpetuating the notion that 'fast-food' is cheap?  I can get a pound of ground beef for about $5 here in NJ.  Potatoes are dirt (pardon the pun) cheap.  Store-Brand burger Rolls?  6 for a $1.  Which means if I take the time to cut the taters into fries and do them in a little vegetable oil, I can serve a family of 4 a "quarter-pounder", and large fries for about $8.  What would that cost at McD's?  I'm guessing around $20.

/  throw in another couple pennies if ya want cheese.
//  salt to taste instead of eating heaps of it.
/// fast-food ain't cheap.


Not necessarily "fast food", chief. Things like a bag of Doritos ($3, feeds 2ish) vs a bunch of bananas (at $.79 per, and let's call a "bunch" 5, that's $3.95; feeds 3ish); or a liter of soda or iced tea/lemonade ($2) vs a gallon of OJ ($6) or milk ($5).

I've noticed that sugary cereals are cheaper than "healthy" cereals, too - for some reason, a 1-lb box of Frosted Flakes is $5, but a smaller box of Crispix (don't judge me) is $4.60 - but that's less scientific.

There's also two other problems, often lumped together with the above:
1. No grocery stores within a decent range of "poor" areas. It's getting better, but bodegas with huge markups are far more expensive than bigger stores like Giant or Safeway. Try doing all your grocery shopping at a CVS (where the items are smaller as well, squeezing your dollar in both directions), then compare with what you'd have spent, even at Whole Foods.

2. Poorer people often have less time in which to cook food, making fast food (or "easy" food, like a bag of Doritos) an attractive option.
 
2014-03-27 11:45:34 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Sorta. ER visits to treat hypoglycemia show a monthly cycle, rising at the end of the month in a way that, say, appendicitis visits don't. So some nontrivial number of folks aren't able to ride out the shortage with fat.

As a fellow fatty, I know it's hard as hell to get your body to start actually burning the stuff instead of just stockpiling more or waiting for more calories to come in.

I figure there's some interplay there - the pervasive sense of financial insecurity driving instincts to eat up while you can.


Not only that, but I think we are biologically predisposed towards liking foods that are high in calories because it makes sense from a survival standpoint:  As a hunter/gatherer you'd want as many calories as you can get from each meal in order to have enough energy to last until the next one.  So stuff that's high in calories like carbohydrates and fats taste "good" to us.
 
2014-03-27 11:47:42 AM  

Dr Dreidel: 2. Poorer people often have less time in which to cook food, making fast food (or "easy" food, like a bag of Doritos) an attractive option.


Actually, poorer people often have more time.  Because they are less likely to have jobs.
 
2014-03-27 11:50:20 AM  
Healthy foods require a larger upfront cost for a family.  It's great if you have the seed money for a healthy meal you can eat off of for a few days, but if you only have a few dollars at a time, you're never going to be able to afford the initial investment in the healthy meal because you're going to have to eat while you're saving money for that healthy food.

You're talking three or four dollars per vegetable per pound, three or four dollars for a family sized bag of rice, maybe seven for a whole chicken, at least in my area.  That might feed a family for a few days.  So you need the $20 to spend for the meal, which is great if you ever have $20 at one time.  Some families never do and need dollar menu crap to get by,
 
2014-03-27 11:54:33 AM  
Wasnt Mississippi one of the states with the most obese people? This is really a story about progress
 
2014-03-27 12:03:35 PM  
It is a Gallup Poll; so the fatest people in the country are self-reporting that they cannot afford to put more food on the table.
t
 
2014-03-27 12:04:10 PM  
It is a Gallup Poll; so the fatest people in the country are self-reporting that they cannot afford to put more food on the table.
 
2014-03-27 12:05:31 PM  
A tiny bit of knowledge on how to prepare food will put a stop to the mistaken belief that it's too expensive to eat healthily. You won't eat "fancy", but you can easily go ultra-nutritious on a budget.

Buy a bag of potatoes, a chicken, a bag of carrots, a few turnips, bag of onions, a bunch of celery, and some frozen corn. (Corn is so cheap it's almost free!)  Total cost: Less than $20 where I live.

Prepare the chicken by slicing off the dumsticks & thighs. These can be baked with a little bit of salt & pepper to make 4 servings of meat.  Add some roasted carrots& turnip and baked potatoes, and you have a hearty meal,

Cut off the chicken's breasts. Cut into small pieces and pan fry them. Add in julienned carrots and celery, and cut up onion pieces. Flavour with any spices you have. Stir fry for 4.   Serve on a bed of mashed potatoes.

Lastly, take the remainder of the chicken carcass, skin, wings, etc. and boil them in a pot with diced celery. Makes a huge amount of chicken broth.  Add small pieces of potato, carrot wheels, corn, onions, etc. You have a huge amount of delicious soup that will keep you going all day.

So I just made 12 servings of healthy food for about $20. And I live in frozen Canada, where most of this stuff costs more than in places where they can actually grow food.
 
2014-03-27 12:06:59 PM  

dittybopper: Actually, poorer people often have more time. Because they are less likely to have jobs.


actually poor people typically have jobs- often more than one. they also tend to be single parents, which further eats up available time
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-03-27 12:10:58 PM  

Gortex: A tiny bit of knowledge on how to prepare food will put a stop to the mistaken belief that it's too expensive to eat healthily...


You are asking them to learn something... plus it's a bit scientific.

Your solution fails.
 
2014-03-27 12:11:48 PM  

firefly212: sat1va: FLMountainMan:
I missed where the study said that they couldn't afford "healthy food".  If it's in there, I retract my statement and apologize for the grievous harm it caused.

FTA:

Interestingly enough, there is also a higher instance of obesity in Mississippi than in any other state. According to Gallup, 35.4 percent of residents were obese in 2013.

The lack of healthy food ... is one of the reasons you have very poor people who are obese. It is because they're not able to afford nutritious and high protein food," Ross Fraser, spokesperson for hunger-relief charity Feeding America, told 24/7 Wall Street last September.

I think it's a bit easier to point to affordability of healthy food than the reality of culturally bad stuff in the south. Fried food, barbecue, meals heavy on red meats, excessive use of butter and oils, and an abject lack of nutrition education. I have friends in the south who *still* serve their kids fried eggs, bacon, and grits every morning because they think that it is a healthy breakfast. While affordability is part of the problem, I think it gets scapegoated a bit too much because of its convenience and cultural sensitivity... nobody wants to insult southern cuisine (because it's f'n good), so they go on pretending that you can have that kind of food for every meal and somehow end up healthy.


Fried eggs, bacon and grits IS a healthy breakfast - for a farmer or an athlete. It's a lot of food for sitting in a chair, though. I eat that every weekend, but then I go to the boxing gym or go snorkeling or some other physical activity.

Also, either a salad or a fruit is needed to keep that from being unbalanced. Which is part of the problem with a lot of southern food today - they remember the BBQ and fried chicken but omit the collared greens and black eyed peas, or pretty much any of the old vegetable stuff that USED to be a big part of the diet.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-03-27 12:11:48 PM  

tlchwi02: dittybopper: Actually, poorer people often have more time. Because they are less likely to have jobs.

actually poor people typically have jobs- often more than one. they also tend to be single parents, which further eats up available time


So far we've seen just about every stereotype talking point... let's see.. what's missing.
 
2014-03-27 12:12:04 PM  

dittybopper: Dr Dreidel: 2. Poorer people often have less time in which to cook food, making fast food (or "easy" food, like a bag of Doritos) an attractive option.

Actually, poorer people often have more time.  Because they are less likely to have jobs.


"Working poor", then. And poor people also have families and such (not to mention the job search can be demanding on one's time, especially if they follow the GOP's suggestion of "do not stop to rest until you have several job offers which you compare against industry norms to ensure you're being paid market rate and aren't getting shafted by a pay gap, if such a thing even exists").

If it's not specifically that problem, it's one or both of the other two. Hence my liberal use of "often". :P
 
2014-03-27 12:14:06 PM  

d23: So far we've seen just about every stereotype talking point... let's see.. what's missing.


are the poor people... near?
 
2014-03-27 12:17:38 PM  
firefly212:

I think it's a bit easier to point to affordability of healthy food than the reality of culturally bad stuff in the south. Fried food, barbecue, meals heavy on red meats, excessive use of butter and oils, and an abject lack of nutrition education. I have friends in the south who *still* serve their kids fried eggs, bacon, and grits every morning because they think that it is a healthy breakfast. While affordability is part of the problem, I think it gets scapegoated a bit too much because of its convenience and cultural sensitivity... nobody wants to insult southern cuisine (because it's f'n good), so they go on pretending that you can have that kind of food for every meal and somehow end up healthy.

Bacon is the only truly "unhealthy" thing in that list and unless the kids are eating a slab of bacon every morning, it isn't a problem in the long run.  Also, nice job assuming that Paula Deen = "southern food"

Most of the poor people down here who are on government assistance are not relying on BBQ, fast food and red meats for sustenance.  The issue is reliance on processed foods, food deserts, lack of public transportation and a loss of culinary education passed down through the family.  When no one in your family can boil water, how can you expect them to cook a decent meal?  You're forced to rely on what you can buy and consume without little or no effort; which is just about everything you can buy at a gas station or convenience store.  In most families, there is continuity between the generations where your mother/father/uncle/grandmother/etc could teach at least the basics of cooking and how to shop for real food.  If you have never been taught how to pick ripe fruits and vegetables, a trip to a grocery store is a daunting task unless you veer into the process, canned, frozen or instant food isles.

Middle class people in the south may be relying on the "southern foods" you listed above but that isn't relevant to the issue here.  The issue is lower class people of all colors in Mississippi and the South as a whole being unable to afford or unable to access healthy food.  Food deserts especially are a MASSIVE problem rural and urban Southern cities.  I work near a not-so-nice part of downtown Atlanta and there isn't a place to buy fresh vegetables within walking distance (<3 miles).  Add in Atlanta's gimped public transit system and you should see why a poor family would rather walk to the corner store for food.
 
2014-03-27 12:19:43 PM  

d23: tlchwi02: dittybopper: Actually, poorer people often have more time. Because they are less likely to have jobs.

actually poor people typically have jobs- often more than one. they also tend to be single parents, which further eats up available time

So far we've seen just about every stereotype talking point... let's see.. what's missing.


Eugenics?
 
2014-03-27 12:19:59 PM  

The Southern Logic Company: When no one in your family can boil water, how can you expect them to cook a decent meal?


or when you're (best case) living in a low rent apartment or long term cheap hotel with a hot plate, one pot and maybe a microwave?
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-03-27 12:21:16 PM  

tlchwi02: The Southern Logic Company: When no one in your family can boil water, how can you expect them to cook a decent meal?

or when you're (best case) living in a low rent apartment or long term cheap hotel with a hot plate, one pot and maybe a microwave?


I said no hot plates in the room, Steve?  Do you have a hot plate up there?
 
2014-03-27 12:25:29 PM  
Food shortages are always self correcting problems.

If you believe in evolution, then you should refuse to support people in overpopulated areas. Darwinism ftw.
 
2014-03-27 12:26:16 PM  

Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.




I just love Northern Liberal smugness since they have so little reason to be smug:


New York City Leads Jump in Homeless


New York has most segregated schools in the country

"In the 30 years I have been researching schools, New York state has consistently been one of the most segregated states in the nation - no Southern state comes close to New York,"
and we could go on about Michigan, Illinois, etc etc etc.
 
2014-03-27 12:27:13 PM  

tricycleracer: AngryDragon: bdub77: The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

[img.fark.net image 387x555]

So this is their final solution?

It's more of a modest proposal.


Came for this. Swiftly leaving...
 
2014-03-27 12:28:01 PM  

Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


They brought Mexico to the South. Kick the illegals out and the problem would correct itself.
 
2014-03-27 12:29:14 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.


So... go be poor in California. Why is that a problem? Sounds like a good way to keep the standard of living high.
 
2014-03-27 12:34:26 PM  

FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.


"Can't afford" does not equal "not getting" food.  Government assistance and charity fills in the gap.  The former often gives people the freedom to buy shiatty food, and the latter often provides shiatty food because that's what gets donated to them and has a good shelf life.
 
2014-03-27 12:37:36 PM  
newsbusters.orgView Full Size


a57.foxnews.comView Full Size

kttv.images.worldnow.comView Full Size


www3.pictures.zimbio.comView Full Size
 
2014-03-27 12:41:23 PM  

ginandbacon: FLMountainMan: ginandbacon: FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.

Do you actually believe that obesity and poor diet are not linked?

I missed where the study said that they couldn't afford "healthy food".  If it's in there, I retract my statement and apologize for the grievous harm it caused.

They can afford to eat crap for 25 days out of the month and then they go hungry. They are obese because they eat crap. Is that hard to comprehend?


It's so easy to be judgemental when you've never known hunger. I have, and to feed my kids on less than ten dollars for the week, I could buy a couple of packages of cheap hotdogs and a loaf of bread. If I limited myself to one a night, the boys could eat their fill. I didn't have the transportation to get to the food pantry and "made too much" for foodstamps at that time because my ex decided to pay child support for the first time in 7 years the month before. Until you've had to look at your hungry kids in the face and tell them "no more food" kindly shut the fark up about the poorz and their shiatty nutrition.
 
2014-03-27 12:44:25 PM  

Deedeemarz: They have high obesity rates among the poor. Crappy food is cheaper than good food (or so they think). What they really need to do is teach these people that healthy food can be bought for cheap and restrict junk food items that can be bought with entitlements. If for some reason people cannot qualify for entitlements, social services should do a better job of connecting people with community resources to help them: food banks and other resources can really help out. This should help the people who truly have issues obtaining enough food to get what they need. The resources are out there but many people don't know how to access them or how to manage their limited resources to get the most bang for their buck.


Thanks for the patronizing analysis. Where were you when I had less than $10 a week to feed my boys. I sure could have used your brilliant insights then.
 
2014-03-27 12:44:31 PM  

dittybopper: squirrelflavoredyogurt: CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..

As the article pointed out, because the cheap food is the high carb food that has little nutritional value but lots of calories. Science is really really hard, I know, but you should really look into it.

Many of the poor people in the US have the highest obesity rates, this has been known for years and it's because of the reason I pointed out. It's more fun to feel superior to poor and fat people though, right?

The implication of the headline that people might starve because they "can't afford food".

Which is bullshiat, because they are getting enough calories.  More than enough, in fact.

Now it might not be healthiest kind of food, but it is food that will keep you from starving.  And if you go hungry for a day or two or three at the end of the month, well, that's what fat is for:  To store calories to bridge the gap between meals when times are hard.

I'm not going to get worked up about a fat person talking about how they don't have much to eat for a couple of days until they get their check*.

And I say that as a fat person.

Now, you show me a gaunt person who is obviously suffering from malnutrition due to lack of caloric intake that isn't voluntary, and we'll talk.

*Payroll or welfare, doesn't matter


So your position is screw the health and well being of poor people because we make sure they have enough calories to stay alive. They don't need any proper nutrition, they don't need to be healthy.

We subsidize the cheap crappy food they eat which barely keeps them alive. Why not subsidize healthier food? Why not provide free seeds and garden plots and let them grow some of their own food? The model your championing, is the least efficient and worst system in terms of cost to nutrition. You suggestion keeps them poor. If you don't eat right you don't perform as well mentally or physically. Want chance do they ever have to get off welfare if all you eat is the bare minimum of what you need to survive?

I keep hearing about how Republicans want to have smaller government, but it's Mississippi that requires personal interviews, the least amount of money actually goes to the recipient there as opposed to states that handle it better.

FTA: "The average SNAP recipient in Mississippi  , whereas residents in Hawaii, for example, get more than $7 a day, according to the USDA." So it's government waste at the state level that is the main problem.

Your "poor people don't deserve to eat better in the richest country in the world" argument is the typical Republican "feel good" solution though. Just watch Fox, they're all cheating the system and eating lobster.
 
2014-03-27 12:44:43 PM  
I think it's safe to say nobody here is going to be splitting the atom, marty.
 
2014-03-27 12:48:33 PM  
I watched this the other night.  It was very enlightening.  Sadly those that blame the poor for being poor are not likely to seek out knowledge about how the poor live, and they are the ones that need to see it the most.
 
2014-03-27 12:49:27 PM  

Deedeemarz: squirrelflavoredyogurt: CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..

As the article pointed out, because the cheap food is the high carb food that has little nutritional value but lots of calories. Science is really really hard, I know, but you should really look into it.

Many of the poor people in the US have the highest obesity rates, this has been known for years and it's because of the reason I pointed out. It's more fun to feel superior to poor and fat people though, right?

We need to teach them that it is possible to eat healthy on a very limited budget. My elderly patients are frequently very poor and with limited funds; they are obese and eat diets that contribute to their chronic health problems. The first step in correcting these problems is teaching them how to eat healthier on their budget; I imagine that the obese poor are in a similar situation. Education regarding diet and budgeting might go a long way in helping them; maybe include this as a requirement in order to obtain SNAP or other food assistance. Just a thought.


That sounds like a very good part to the solution, but we could do much better. We currently subsidize cheap, low nutrition, high calorie foods. Why not subsidize fruits and vegetables? Why not provide fruits and veggies as part of the system? The article mentions that there is a huge difference in terms of how much aid people get just because of the inefficiency of the state who runs it. Four dollars in Mississippi is seven in Hawaii.

Change needs to come, but suggesting that all the change needs to happen on the side of the recipient ignores much of the problem.
 
2014-03-27 12:50:22 PM  

Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


What's Obama have to do with Mississippi? The federal government does fund some programs in the states, but there's only so much you can do when the constitutionally antonymous governments of your provinces deliberately aim at being shiatholes for the sake of robbing everyone but the rich to make the rich richer.

What Mississippi -and Louisiana, and Texas, and lots of Southern States- highlights isn't the failures of Obama's administration, but the central flaw in our federal Constitution. If the States had less authority and stuff like Education and Healthcare were centralized in Union-wide programs funded and administered to the same standards, the US would be in a much better place. As it stands, State, county, and local govs can undercut Federal initiatives through both misappropriation and bald-faced recalcitrance(the insurance exchange and medicare expansion rollouts are a good recent example).

Similarly, cutting State governments out of stuff like Highway and Housing funding and maintenance would cut down on a buttload of political corruption in the US, since distributing those contracts play a big part in State-gov largesse, in Texas at least.
 
2014-03-27 12:54:19 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Deedeemarz: squirrelflavoredyogurt: CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..

As the article pointed out, because the cheap food is the high carb food that has little nutritional value but lots of calories. Science is really really hard, I know, but you should really look into it.

Many of the poor people in the US have the highest obesity rates, this has been known for years and it's because of the reason I pointed out. It's more fun to feel superior to poor and fat people though, right?

We need to teach them that it is possible to eat healthy on a very limited budget. My elderly patients are frequently very poor and with limited funds; they are obese and eat diets that contribute to their chronic health problems. The first step in correcting these problems is teaching them how to eat healthier on their budget; I imagine that the obese poor are in a similar situation. Education regarding diet and budgeting might go a long way in helping them; maybe include this as a requirement in order to obtain SNAP or other food assistance. Just a thought.

That sounds like a very good part to the solution, but we could do much better. We currently subsidize cheap, low nutrition, high calorie foods. Why not subsidize fruits and vegetables? Why not provide fruits and veggies as part of the system? The article mentions that there is a huge difference in terms of how much aid people get just because of the inefficiency of the state who runs it. Four dollars in Mississippi is seven in Hawaii.

Change needs to come, but suggesting that all the change needs to happen on the side of the recipient ignores much of the problem.


Good questions, but good luck getting the Republicans to play ball. Hell, just this year they almost killed farm subsidies entirely, a move I can't imagine their ag-backers like Monsanto liked, just to take food out of the mouths of poor kids on SNAP. As long as the Republican party has a part to play in US Federal politics(and State politics too, since they can hamstring implementation from there), we won't be doing any significant reforms on the federal policy level, and that's a fact.
 
2014-03-27 12:56:18 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: FLMountainMan: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

It also has one of the lowest unemployment rates and costs of living.  I'd rather dig a ditch in Texas than suckle the government teat in a frozen hellhole like Minnesota.  Cali wouldn't be bad though...I could definitely suckle some teats there.

Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-depe nd ent-government_n_5035877.html

So apparently, you'd rather suckle the government teat and be poor, hot, and miserable than be cold. We have coats you know, and gloves, and hats. We do tend to make fun of people who aren't educated and like to speak their minds about how to fix things, so maybe you wouldn't fit in.


But apparently they don't teach you to read or use your brain there. See where one of the main points of his post was lower unemployment rates? Means he could more likely get an actual JOB in Texas and thar is preferable to him than living on assistance.
 
2014-03-27 12:57:39 PM  
Federal expenditures transfers money from well-educated productive northern states to southern states, thus maintaining one national currency and keeping us from worry about invasion from hungry southerners.

/cause what could be funnier than hunger
 
2014-03-27 12:58:06 PM  

CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..


Interesting, to be sure.

Perhaps Farkistan could come up with a modest proposal to solve their little "hunger" problem.
 
2014-03-27 12:59:46 PM  
The obvious solution is to cut SNAP benefits by billions of dollars.

/pathetically even Obama signed on to do exactly that
//fark poor, hungry people... this is America! fark yeah!
 
2014-03-27 01:05:40 PM  

This text is now purple: LordJiro: Except that the cheapest food is also the shiattiest.

In terms of most fattening or least nutritious? Because I don't see foie gras on many fast food menus.


Junk food, by its definition, is fattening and nutritionally bereft. You can become a lardass very quickly eating empty carbs and it doesn't cost much. But you can be malnourished at the same time, which makes it more difficult to lose excess fat and easier to get sick.
 
2014-03-27 01:06:08 PM  

gadian: Healthy foods require a larger upfront cost for a family.  It's great if you have the seed money for a healthy meal you can eat off of for a few days, but if you only have a few dollars at a time, you're never going to be able to afford the initial investment in the healthy meal because you're going to have to eat while you're saving money for that healthy food.

You're talking three or four dollars per vegetable per pound, three or four dollars for a family sized bag of rice, maybe seven for a whole chicken, at least in my area.  That might feed a family for a few days.  So you need the $20 to spend for the meal, which is great if you ever have $20 at one time.  Some families never do and need dollar menu crap to get by,


Health food for the truly impoverished begins with beans, rice, and maybe eggs and some seasoning. Nome of those items cost much over a dollar in bulk. The true cost comes down to time in preparation and, "waaah, where's mah meat?"
 
2014-03-27 01:07:26 PM  

elysive: gadian: Healthy foods require a larger upfront cost for a family.  It's great if you have the seed money for a healthy meal you can eat off of for a few days, but if you only have a few dollars at a time, you're never going to be able to afford the initial investment in the healthy meal because you're going to have to eat while you're saving money for that healthy food.

You're talking three or four dollars per vegetable per pound, three or four dollars for a family sized bag of rice, maybe seven for a whole chicken, at least in my area.  That might feed a family for a few days.  So you need the $20 to spend for the meal, which is great if you ever have $20 at one time.  Some families never do and need dollar menu crap to get by,

Health food for the truly impoverished begins with beans, rice, and maybe eggs and some seasoning. Nome of those items cost much over a dollar in bulk. The true cost comes down to time in preparation and, "waaah, where's mah meat?"


Much like those who keep long term storage of food (preppers, mormons, etc). If all you have and eat are those ingredients, you are going to grow tired of them very quickly.
 
2014-03-27 01:09:48 PM  
Interesting, according to the CDC Mississippi is ranked # 1 in obesity in the United States.
 
2014-03-27 01:12:19 PM  

12349876: FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.

"Can't afford" does not equal "not getting" food.  Government assistance and charity fills in the gap.  The former often gives people the freedom to buy shiatty food, and the latter often provides shiatty food because that's what gets donated to them and has a good shelf life.


They don't. Food stamps typically provided enough for two and a half weeks of food BEFORE the recent cuts to SNAP. Private charities and food banks typically give three or four more days' worth. Donations to food banks have been down nationwide just when need has been highest.

The sad fact is that millions do go hungry every month because they don't have jobs that give them enough to live on. Government assistance and private charity do not make up the difference.
 
2014-03-27 01:12:22 PM  

El Dudereno: CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..

Interesting, to be sure.


Perhaps Farkistan could come up with a modest proposal to solve their little "hunger" problem.


I like to call that Men at Fark.

img.fark.netView Full Size


/Image courtesy of GoodDoctorB:

//I'm sure you were fishing for the soylent green is people.jpg


I'm sure the farm subsidies make some sense the way they are, but I'd rather see green vegetables subsidised to the point of being the highest calorie item on the dollar menu at restaurants.

 
2014-03-27 01:13:19 PM  

bdub77: The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

[img.fark.net image 387x555]


Republicans hate poor
Democrats love poor

got it!
 
2014-03-27 01:16:10 PM  

Nadie_AZ: elysive: gadian: Healthy foods require a larger upfront cost for a family.  It's great if you have the seed money for a healthy meal you can eat off of for a few days, but if you only have a few dollars at a time, you're never going to be able to afford the initial investment in the healthy meal because you're going to have to eat while you're saving money for that healthy food.

You're talking three or four dollars per vegetable per pound, three or four dollars for a family sized bag of rice, maybe seven for a whole chicken, at least in my area.  That might feed a family for a few days.  So you need the $20 to spend for the meal, which is great if you ever have $20 at one time.  Some families never do and need dollar menu crap to get by,

Health food for the truly impoverished begins with beans, rice, and maybe eggs and some seasoning. Nome of those items cost much over a dollar in bulk. The true cost comes down to time in preparation and, "waaah, where's mah meat?"

Much like those who keep long term storage of food (preppers, mormons, etc). If all you have and eat are those ingredients, you are going to grow tired of them very quickly.


That's true, but it's also why I stated it as a starting point. I was replying to a post implying you had to invest over $20 in a meal to start eating healthy. If you start with staples instead, you can build your pantry/fridge/freezer as you supplement each new meal with more expensive ingredients.

Anyway, if it's only a choice between starving, abusing your body with junk or eating boringly healthy food, the boring healthy stuff should win out sometimes.
 
2014-03-27 01:17:31 PM  

elysive: Nadie_AZ: elysive: gadian: Healthy foods require a larger upfront cost for a family.  It's great if you have the seed money for a healthy meal you can eat off of for a few days, but if you only have a few dollars at a time, you're never going to be able to afford the initial investment in the healthy meal because you're going to have to eat while you're saving money for that healthy food.

You're talking three or four dollars per vegetable per pound, three or four dollars for a family sized bag of rice, maybe seven for a whole chicken, at least in my area.  That might feed a family for a few days.  So you need the $20 to spend for the meal, which is great if you ever have $20 at one time.  Some families never do and need dollar menu crap to get by,

Health food for the truly impoverished begins with beans, rice, and maybe eggs and some seasoning. Nome of those items cost much over a dollar in bulk. The true cost comes down to time in preparation and, "waaah, where's mah meat?"

Much like those who keep long term storage of food (preppers, mormons, etc). If all you have and eat are those ingredients, you are going to grow tired of them very quickly.

That's true, but it's also why I stated it as a starting point. I was replying to a post implying you had to invest over $20 in a meal to start eating healthy. If you start with staples instead, you can build your pantry/fridge/freezer as you supplement each new meal with more expensive ingredients.

Anyway, if it's only a choice between starving, abusing your body with junk or eating boringly healthy food, the boring healthy stuff should win out sometimes.


Ah. Understood.
 
2014-03-27 01:18:14 PM  

TheGogmagog: El Dudereno: CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..
Interesting, to be sure.
Perhaps Farkistan could come up with a modest proposal to solve their little "hunger" problem.
I like to call that Men at Fark.
/Image courtesy of GoodDoctorB://I'm sure you were fishing for the soylent green is people.jpg
I'm sure the farm subsidies make some sense the way they are, but I'd rather see green vegetables subsidised to the point of being the highest calorie item on the dollar menu at restaurants.


Bingo.

Unfortunately, commodity grain stores better and is an easier money maker for large farm operations.
Hard to create a market for kale futures when you can't store it for more than a week after harvest.
 
2014-03-27 01:22:45 PM  

sat1va: FLMountainMan:
I missed where the study said that they couldn't afford "healthy food".  If it's in there, I retract my statement and apologize for the grievous harm it caused.

FTA:

Interestingly enough, there is also a higher instance of obesity in Mississippi than in any other state. According to Gallup, 35.4 percent of residents were obese in 2013.

The lack of healthy food ... is one of the reasons you have very poor people who are obese. It is because they're not able to afford nutritious and high protein food," Ross Fraser, spokesperson for hunger-relief charity Feeding America, told 24/7 Wall Street last September.


Well luckily because of Obamacare we now know that the federal government can makes us buy Brussels Sprouts.
 
2014-03-27 01:27:45 PM  

Bullseyed: Food shortages are always self correcting problems.

If you believe in evolution, then you should refuse to support people in overpopulated areas. Darwinism ftw.


Around here Darwin's theories are only admissable when making fun of Christians.
 
2014-03-27 01:29:06 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.

No it doesn't.  In fact Texas pays more than it gets back unlike other bIg population States such as California , New York and Florida



ritholtz.comView Full Size

 
2014-03-27 01:30:56 PM  

hasty ambush: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.No it doesn't.  In fact Texas pays more than it gets back unlike other bIg population States such as California , New York and Florida

[www.ritholtz.com image 600x515]


That is one of the worst charts I think I've ever seen.
 
2014-03-27 01:33:25 PM  

TheGogmagog: I'd rather see green vegetables subsidised to the point of being the highest calorie item on the dollar menu at restaurants.


200 calories of cheeseburger:
staticb.wisegeek.comView Full Size


200 calories of broccoli:
statica.wisegeek.comView Full Size


I like the spirit of your idea, but green veggies just aren't calorie dense enough to support that. No one wants a cheeseburger's worth of calories as broccoli for lunch.
 
2014-03-27 01:34:12 PM  
I don't know what they're talking about.  Here in Mississippi, food is free.  It's either in the road or on the side of the road.
 
2014-03-27 01:34:36 PM  

Bullseyed: Food shortages are always self correcting problems.


Well, historically, if the shortages get widespread enough, they tend to lead to redistribution by guillotine. In a functional democracy they could lead to the lite version, the much-feared-in-the-right-wing-reality-bubble "moocherpocalypse".

But that may not hold in the future, what with automation and drones, the rich may not need the production of the masses, nor need to fear them.
 
2014-03-27 01:37:30 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: dittybopper: squirrelflavoredyogurt: CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..

As the article pointed out, because the cheap food is the high carb food that has little nutritional value but lots of calories. Science is really really hard, I know, but you should really look into it.

Many of the poor people in the US have the highest obesity rates, this has been known for years and it's because of the reason I pointed out. It's more fun to feel superior to poor and fat people though, right?

The implication of the headline that people might starve because they "can't afford food".

Which is bullshiat, because they are getting enough calories.  More than enough, in fact.

Now it might not be healthiest kind of food, but it is food that will keep you from starving.  And if you go hungry for a day or two or three at the end of the month, well, that's what fat is for:  To store calories to bridge the gap between meals when times are hard.

I'm not going to get worked up about a fat person talking about how they don't have much to eat for a couple of days until they get their check*.

And I say that as a fat person.

Now, you show me a gaunt person who is obviously suffering from malnutrition due to lack of caloric intake that isn't voluntary, and we'll talk.

*Payroll or welfare, doesn't matter

So your position is screw the health and well being of poor people because we make sure they have enough calories to stay alive. They don't need any proper nutrition, they don't need to be healthy.

We subsidize the cheap crappy food they eat which barely keeps them alive. Why not subsidize healthier food? Why not provide free seeds and garden plots and let them grow some of their own food? The model your championing, is the least efficient and worst system in terms of cost to nutrition. You suggestion keeps them poor. If you don't eat right you don't perform as well mentally or physically. Want chance do they ever have to get off welfare if all you eat is the bare min ...


Just so you know, Hawaii has the highest cost of living and Mississippi has the lowest. Please do a little research, I'm sure one of those other smart Minnesotans could answer your question......and they wouldn't even need to take off their gloves or coat to do it.
 
2014-03-27 01:40:51 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.


But the property tax rate is among the highest in the country (except for people like the poverty stricken owners of the King Ranch and the Bush family who get "agricultural" exemptions on their vast and valuable holdings.)
 
2014-03-27 01:47:08 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: hasty ambush: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.No it doesn't.  In fact Texas pays more than it gets back unlike other bIg population States such as California , New York and Florida

[www.ritholtz.com image 600x515]

That is one of the worst charts I think I've ever seen.


Does not change the fact that Texas does not even break even in money sent to the Feds vs what it gets back and it has been that way for a long time. California used to be a donor state  but  in recent years has become a welfare state.  New York is trending that way  Look how far it status has changed from 2004:compared to 2010 (previous post)


4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size




Becuase Federal spending also takes in things like Naitonal Parks, Military spending etc total federal spending is not really a good measure as a state were the Feds own a lot of the land or has a lot of military bases  would have the number slant against it  while  measurign just welfare dollars  gives a different picture:



imageshack.comView Full Size

imageshack.comView Full Size
 
2014-03-27 01:50:58 PM  
We need to really focus on reversible /temporary birth control technology for men and women--and make proof that such birth control is being used as a condition of recieving public assistance. Letting people breed who can't care for themselves is a recipe for failure.

i think our Food stamp program needs to functionmore like WIC. Limit what those recieving food stamps can purchase. No sweets, no cola, only basic staples, fruits, vegetables and so on.

Also fatties get reduced food stamps, or mandatory weight loss treatment to recieve treatment.  i'm tired of seeing fatties on scooters using food stamps to buy twinkies by the pallet.  I really dont want to waste public money paying for the health needs of lazy fatties.
 
2014-03-27 01:55:37 PM  

Turbo Cojones: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

But the property tax rate is among the highest in the country (except for people like the poverty stricken owners of the King Ranch and the Bush family who get "agricultural" exemptions on their vast and valuable holdings.)




The facts on Texas' Tax Climate


Tax Freedom Day Arrives on April 10th in Texas

Tax Freedom Day is the day when Americans finally have earned enough money to pay off their total tax bill for the year. In 2013, Texas taxpayers worked until April 10th (20th earliest nationally) to pay their total tax bill. The Tax Freedom Days of neighboring states are: New Mexico, April 3rd (ranked 5th earliest nationally); Oklahoma, April 6th (ranked 9th earliest nationally); Arkansas, April 7th (ranked 12th earliest nationally); and Louisiana, March 29th (ranked 2nd earliest nationally).

Texas's Individual Income Tax System

Texas levies no individual income tax, joining seven other states with the same policy: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.

Texas's State and Local Tax Burden Below National Average

Texas's 2010 tax burden of 7.93% ranks 6th lowest out of 50 states, and is below the national average of 9.9%. Texas's taxpayers pay $3104 per capita in state and local taxes.

Texas's Corporate Income Tax System

Ohio, Texas, and Washington do not have a corporate income tax but do have a gross receipts tax with rates not strictly comparable to corporate income tax rates.

Texas Sales and Excise Taxes

Texas levies a 6.25% general sales or use tax on consumers, which is above the national median of 5.95%. The average local sales tax rate is an additional 1.9%. Texas's state and local governments collect $1071 per person in general sales taxes and $541 per person in excise taxes, for a combined figure of $1612, which ranks 13th highest nationally. Texas's gasoline tax stands at 20¢ (12th lowest nationally), while its cigarette tax stands at $1.41 (24th highest nationally.)

Texas Property Tax Collections Relatively High
Texas's state and local governments collected approximately $1557 per person in property taxes, which ranks 15th highest nationally.


Texas's 2014 Business Tax Climate Index Ranks 11

Texas ranks 11th in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index. The Index compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes, individual income taxes, sales taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, and taxes on property, including residential and commercial property. The ranks of neighboring states are as follows: New Mexico, 38th, Oklahoma, 36th, Arkansas, 35th, and Louisiana, 33rd.
 
2014-03-27 01:56:48 PM  

dittybopper: The implication of the headline that people might starve because they "can't afford food".


You're being incredibly pedantic, and you're also wrong on a couple of levels. First of all, "starving" doesn't only refer to a simple lack of sufficient calories to continue functioning.  It can also refer to starving from a lack of nutrients that are vital to basic health.  Calories are not all equal to your body's chemistry, and malnutrition can kill you even if you're getting enough calories to burn.  For example, scurvy is fatal no matter how many calories you're getting.

dittybopper: And if you go hungry for a day or two or three at the end of the month, well, that's what fat is for: To store calories to bridge the gap between meals when times are hard.


Second, people who are fat can starve almost as easily as thin people. because guess what?  It takes energy to turn fat reserves into useful fuel.  And guess where that energy comes from when there's no food intake? It comes from burning muscle tissue. And guess which muscle is already working as hard as it can in a fat person's body, and tends to give out quickly under the starvation response?

Hmm... this fat guy died of a heart attack... I'm sure the fact that he hadn't eaten in a week had nothing to do with it though, because look.. he's still fat.
 
2014-03-27 01:59:19 PM  

hasty ambush: DROxINxTHExWIND: hasty ambush: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.No it doesn't.  In fact Texas pays more than it gets back unlike other bIg population States such as California , New York and Florida

[www.ritholtz.com image 600x515]

That is one of the worst charts I think I've ever seen.

Does not change the fact that Texas does not even break even in money sent to the Feds vs what it gets back and it has been that way for a long time. California used to be a donor state  but  in recent years has become a welfare state.  New York is trending that way  Look how far it status has changed from 2004:compared to 2010 (previous post)
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 743x505]


Becuase Federal spending also takes in things like Naitonal Parks, Military spending etc total federal spending is not really a good measure as a state were the Feds own a lot of the land or has a lot of military bases  would have the number slant against it  while  measurign just welfare dollars  gives a different picture:

[imageshack.com image 850x176]
[imageshack.com image 850x1276]



I wasn't disputing the info. Just saying that the graphic made my eyes hurt.

/I had nuthin'
 
2014-03-27 01:59:35 PM  

LordJiro: FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.

Except that the cheapest food is also the shiattiest. So the people who are poor, but still CAN afford food, are eating McDonalds or shiat they buy at the dollar store, because they can't afford fresh food.


This is a lazy cop out that is constantly trotted out.  You don't even need to eat fresh food for it to be healthy.

Chickpeas are cheap as shiat and they taste good.  You do have to open a can though.

People go to McDonald's for convenience and because they crave it. It is a lazy choice, not the most cost-effective one.
 
2014-03-27 02:00:17 PM  

incrdbil: We need to really focus on reversible /temporary birth control technology for men and women--and make proof that such birth control is being used as a condition of recieving public assistance. Letting people breed who can't care for themselves is a recipe for failure.

i think our Food stamp program needs to functionmore like WIC. Limit what those recieving food stamps can purchase. No sweets, no cola, only basic staples, fruits, vegetables and so on.


Have you  ever heard the term "food desert"?  It's kind of hard to get fresh fruit and vegetables if the only stores you can get to are mini marts that only carry junk food.

Also, ironically enough, the leaders in DC most hell-bent on making sure the poors don't get one red cent more than they deserve are also the ones who are making access to birth control difficult or impossible.  Go figure.
 
2014-03-27 02:08:13 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND: Additionally, Mississippi is the only state that distributes the SNAP packages for women, children and infants at state-run distribution centers. Almost 90 percent of the counties there have just one distribution center. Other states allow SNAP members to collect their food with more convenient EBT cards.

They intentionally make it difficult for the poor. The party of small government doesn't mind paying a government worker a salary to interview poor people about being poor.


Before they went to the EBT cards in Florida, they used this system here. At first they would make the local food banks drive to a general distribution center and pick up the food for the far flung communities, but there was so very much corruption from these mostly religious organization run food banks that only basic food was getting to the people.
Meats, fruits, fresh vegetables and anything salt free almost never made it to the shelves. At the same time they had people who would make the rounds of the various community food banks, receiving bags of groceries at each place. When they finally put it on the computer they found over 300 people doing this in a community of less than 2500 people. So they started making everyone come in. The system would have worked if the people were honest, but they are not.

Likewise I keep a 3/4 acre truck garden and the overflow went to the local Catholic food bank; and after doing it for a couple of years I found out that any melons (cantaloupe, honeydew and watermelon) that I took to it were being taken by the staff, with the office workers getting first choice and the community service workers getting the rest.
 
2014-03-27 02:09:26 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: So your position is screw the health and well being of poor people because we make sure they have enough calories to stay alive. They don't need any proper nutrition, they don't need to be healthy.


Nobody has less sympathy for fat people than the guy who's just a little bit less fat.

squirrelflavoredyogurt: We subsidize the cheap crappy food they eat which barely keeps them alive. Why not subsidize healthier food?


If poor people were as bootstrappy as dittybopper, they would teach themselves how to hunt and kill deer with a musket like he did, and they would never starve because there are enough deer to feed everyone. So they must be fat because they're bad people.
 
2014-03-27 02:13:24 PM  

varmitydog: DROxINxTHExWIND: Additionally, Mississippi is the only state that distributes the SNAP packages for women, children and infants at state-run distribution centers. Almost 90 percent of the counties there have just one distribution center. Other states allow SNAP members to collect their food with more convenient EBT cards.

They intentionally make it difficult for the poor. The party of small government doesn't mind paying a government worker a salary to interview poor people about being poor.

Before they went to the EBT cards in Florida, they used this system here. At first they would make the local food banks drive to a general distribution center and pick up the food for the far flung communities, but there was so very much corruption from these mostly religious organization run food banks that only basic food was getting to the people.
Meats, fruits, fresh vegetables and anything salt free almost never made it to the shelves. At the same time they had people who would make the rounds of the various community food banks, receiving bags of groceries at each place. When they finally put it on the computer they found over 300 people doing this in a community of less than 2500 people. So they started making everyone come in. The system would have worked if the people were honest, but they are not.

Likewise I keep a 3/4 acre truck garden and the overflow went to the local Catholic food bank; and after doing it for a couple of years I found out that any melons (cantaloupe, honeydew and watermelon) that I took to it were being taken by the staff, with the office workers getting first choice and the community service workers getting the rest.


Smh.
 
2014-03-27 02:13:32 PM  
hasty ambush:

Does not change the fact that Texas does not even break even in money sent to the Feds vs what it gets back and it has been that way for a long time. California used to be a donor state  but  in recent years has become a welfare state.  New York is trending that way

Becuase Federal spending also takes in things like Naitonal Parks, Military spending etc total federal spending is not really a good measure as a state were the Feds own a lot of the land or has a lot of military bases  would have the number slant against it  while  measurign just welfare dollars  gives a different picture:


States like Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North and South Carolina and Virginia were on the receiving end of a TON of federal (mostly military) spending in the 1860s and hardly contributed a penny in tax revenue.

/ingrates
 
2014-03-27 02:15:23 PM  

incrdbil: i think our Food stamp program needs to functionmore like WIC. Limit what those recieving food stamps can purchase. No sweets, no cola, only basic staples, fruits, vegetables and so on.


I wouldn't have a problem with that, as it's not actually much of a paternalism increment from the current food stamp program.

incrdbil: Also fatties get reduced food stamps, or mandatory weight loss treatment to recieve treatment.  i'm tired of seeing fatties on scooters using food stamps to buy twinkies by the pallet.  I really dont want to waste public money paying for the health needs of lazy fatties.


It might take some analysis (or experimentation, I guess) to see if that would even save money. (Like drug-testing welfare recipients, which has been a big net cost to whoever's tried it). It would also be nice to have some sort of weight loss treatment that worked; given the success rates of current ones I'd assume essentially all of the money spent on it would be wasted.

Though if the conservative impulse to afflict the undeserving leads to research that figures out how to tweak fatties' hormones or whatever to make them less hungry, great! Currently that kind of research is resisted because of the cultural imperative to make fat a moral failing.
 
2014-03-27 02:17:02 PM  

MBooda: hasty ambush:

Does not change the fact that Texas does not even break even in money sent to the Feds vs what it gets back and it has been that way for a long time. California used to be a donor state  but  in recent years has become a welfare state.  New York is trending that way

Becuase Federal spending also takes in things like Naitonal Parks, Military spending etc total federal spending is not really a good measure as a state were the Feds own a lot of the land or has a lot of military bases  would have the number slant against it  while  measurign just welfare dollars  gives a different picture:

States like Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North and South Carolina and Virginia were on the receiving end of a TON of federal (mostly military) spending in the 1860s and hardly contributed a penny in tax revenue.

/ingrates


I for one am grateful that the Federal government did so much to incubate a blockade-running industry here.
 
2014-03-27 02:24:37 PM  

Z-clipped: dittybopper: The implication of the headline that people might starve because they "can't afford food".

You're being incredibly pedantic, and you're also wrong on a couple of levels. First of all, "starving" doesn't only refer to a simple lack of sufficient calories to continue functioning.  It can also refer to starving from a lack of nutrients that are vital to basic health.  Calories are not all equal to your body's chemistry, and malnutrition can kill you even if you're getting enough calories to burn.  For example, scurvy is fatal no matter how many calories you're getting.


Starvation is usually understood to mean a fatal caloric deficit. A malignant nutritional deficit (say, cretinism (iodine deficiency)) is malnutrition, not starving.

Fat people don't starve to death, but they may be malnourished.
 
2014-03-27 02:26:44 PM  

Richard C Stanford: And WTF does Obama have to do with how Mississippi is run? He can't magically put himself in charge of the state and fix all it's problems. He can pretty much just make suggestions to the state government, which would be promptly ignored to "stick it to obummer".



MS is run almost exclusively by Republicans. Repub Gov, majority of both houses, almost all US congress and both Senators. Why isn't it a conservative utopia instead of a hellhole of poverty, ignorance, racisim and obesity?
 
2014-03-27 02:27:01 PM  

freetomato: Have you ever heard the term "food desert"? It's kind of hard to get fresh fruit and vegetables if the only stores you can get to are mini marts that only carry junk food.


It turns out that diet has a strong cultural component, and the availability of a healthier alternative at comparable prices does not mean it will be selected.

In other words, people eat what tastes good, with "what tastes good" being often culturally-defined.
 
2014-03-27 02:28:43 PM  

incrdbil: We need to really focus on reversible /temporary birth control technology for men and women--and make proof that such birth control is being used as a condition of recieving public assistance. Letting people breed who can't care for themselves is a recipe for failure.


I don't know if you've been slaughtered for sharing this viewpoint yet, but your point is simultaneously the most hated and the most sensible.

Liberals defending the rights for people to reproduce uninhibitedly because it's a basic human right, is part of what has been undermining my liberalness. I have been busting my ass and happily paying a lot of money in taxes for 25 years of employment, but that's the one that is wrecking me.
 
2014-03-27 02:29:04 PM  
My problem is that the Dept of Ag. pays subsidies to some farmers, then those farmers will destroy some of their bumper crop to keep their prices inflated. THEN, the Dept of Ag. turns around and gives food support which will now buy less food, because of inflated prices
 
2014-03-27 02:44:49 PM  
media.npr.orgView Full Size


Angelica Hernandez (left) and her mother, Gloria Nunez, struggle to make ends meet on a very limited budget.


Struggling In Ohio As The Economy Tightens

"Nunez, 40, has never worked and has no high school degree. She says a car accident 17 years ago left her depressed and disabled, incapable of getting a job."

People tell Nunez her daughter could get more money in public assistance if she had a child.

"A lot of people have told me, 'Why don't your daughter have a kid?'"

"They both reject that as a plan."

The rising cost of food means their money gets them about a third fewer bags of groceries - $100 used to buy about 12 bags of groceries, but now it's more like seven or eight. So they cut back on expensive items like meat, and they don't buy extras like ice cream anymore. Instead, they eat a lot of starches like potatoes and noodles.
 
2014-03-27 02:45:51 PM  

anuran: 12349876: FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.

"Can't afford" does not equal "not getting" food.  Government assistance and charity fills in the gap.  The former often gives people the freedom to buy shiatty food, and the latter often provides shiatty food because that's what gets donated to them and has a good shelf life.

They don't. Food stamps typically provided enough for two and a half weeks of food BEFORE the recent cuts to SNAP. Private charities and food banks typically give three or four more days' worth. Donations to food banks have been down nationwide just when need has been highest.

The sad fact is that millions do go hungry every month because they don't have jobs that give them enough to live on. Government assistance and private charity do not make up the difference.


Yeah, no. My wife and I have to depend on "food stamps" (not really stamps anymore). We get around $250 between us and we are able to make it stretch to cover the whole month without using very much of what little cash we have. We plan ahead by thinking "Okay if we get the ingredients, we can make chili one week, chicken soup another weekbeans and rice with pork belly a third week and chicken lasagna the fourth week." Each of those will make enough to last for dinner at least 4-5 nights. Through in some vegetables for sides, a 24 pack of hot dogs and some extra lean ground beef and dinner is covered for the month and using less than half of our "stamps". A two pound pack of ham and some cheese covers lunch for most days. A little fresh sausage from the butcher shop, some fresh fruit, some oatmeal and instant pancake mix and there's breakfast. Then next month we'll do it again with some variety. If you shop and plan meals right you can definitely eat for the whole month and not eat just junk..
 
2014-03-27 02:46:11 PM  

Pangea: incrdbil: We need to really focus on reversible /temporary birth control technology for men and women--and make proof that such birth control is being used as a condition of recieving public assistance. Letting people breed who can't care for themselves is a recipe for failure.

I don't know if you've been slaughtered for sharing this viewpoint yet, but your point is simultaneously the most hated and the most sensible.

Liberals defending the rights for people to reproduce uninhibitedly because it's a basic human right, is part of what has been undermining my liberalness. I have been busting my ass and happily paying a lot of money in taxes for 25 years of employment, but that's the one that is wrecking me.


Liberal here too, and I've always thought a little social engineering could go a long way. Make birth control cheap or near free, and not tie it to a doctor's visit (which is where most of the cost for came from for me) and give folks very specific sex ed. The health dept where I live was awesome, but it may not be as awesome in other places and having had to wait for months to get seen at the free clinic and taking unpaid time off of work makes it hard on working familes. People shouldn't have to give birth to children they don't want or can't afford. As far as forcing them to...eh..a little close to the line for me, but I get it. It sounds pretty punative, but we have to address the issue of having too many kids to support. I honestly don't know how to address it other than better healthcare and education.
 
2014-03-27 02:50:42 PM  

Pangea: People go to McDonald's for convenience and because they crave it. It is a lazy choice, not the most cost-effective one.


You're not really taking into consideration how difficult it is to be poor.  It's easy to isolate a single choice someone makes and call it "lazy" but people only have a finite amount of energy and that shiat piles up quickly when you don't have enough money.  Every single thing you do in your day takes more time and effort.

A 15-20 minute car commute to work might take well over an hour each way by bus.  Of course, you're making minimum wage, so the bus fare represents a significant chunk of your weekly pay which means you're spending 1.5 extra hours in travel time and paying for the hassle.

Now you're off work.  A trip to the big grocery store where things are a few cents cheaper might be another hour each way. Plus, without a car, you can't really take advantage of buying in bulk to make fewer, cheaper trips.  So you opt for the more expensive local market that's only 1/2 hour each way, only now you're paying more for the food, but you can still only carry a few days worth of groceries at a time.  On top of that, you now have to spend the time and energy cooking for your kids, plus, since you're a single mother, you're faced with the choice of dragging them with you everywhere, or paying a sitter just to run basic errands, or leaving them alone in the apartment.

Oh, but I forgot to mention- since you live in a poor neighborhood, someone thoughtfully built a fast food restaurant a 5 minute walk from your building (actually, they built four all conveniently right across the street from each other) where the food is so cheap you can get 3 happy meals and a chicken sandwich for yourself for ~$10.  So now you're faced with the choice between spending an hour or two on the bus which costs money, while paying someone to watch your kids, and then another 90 minutes cooking, feeding the kids and cleaning up when you're already exhausted from work.... or walking 5 minutes and spending an extra dollar or two when all is said and done.

Now repeat that dilemma every day for 5 years, and tell me you'd eat chick peas every time.
 
2014-03-27 02:54:26 PM  

formerfloozy: Pangea: incrdbil: We need to really focus on reversible /temporary birth control technology for men and women--and make proof that such birth control is being used as a condition of recieving public assistance. Letting people breed who can't care for themselves is a recipe for failure.

I don't know if you've been slaughtered for sharing this viewpoint yet, but your point is simultaneously the most hated and the most sensible.

Liberals defending the rights for people to reproduce uninhibitedly because it's a basic human right, is part of what has been undermining my liberalness. I have been busting my ass and happily paying a lot of money in taxes for 25 years of employment, but that's the one that is wrecking me.

Liberal here too, and I've always thought a little social engineering could go a long way. Make birth control cheap or near free, and not tie it to a doctor's visit (which is where most of the cost for came from for me) and give folks very specific sex ed. The health dept where I live was awesome, but it may not be as awesome in other places and having had to wait for months to get seen at the free clinic and taking unpaid time off of work makes it hard on working familes. People shouldn't have to give birth to children they don't want or can't afford. As far as forcing them to...eh..a little close to the line for me, but I get it. It sounds pretty punative, but we have to address the issue of having too many kids to support. I honestly don't know how to address it other than better healthcare and education.


You I like. I read some of your posts upthread.

Force is indeed a bad word. I suppose for me, I consider capping of benefits based on number of children you have when entering the program to be as "forced" as I would honestly want.

It doesn't change the fact that people are still going to have babies, but if you can stretch that limited money then it's on you.

Someone else pointed out that the restriction of fertility options is usually attributed to the people most determined to reduce benefits. I have no religious dogma forcing me to believe that every fertilized egg is a life though. Personally, I've got no problem if women want an abortion in the first trimester, even though it would never be the option in my home.
 
2014-03-27 02:58:51 PM  

This text is now purple: Starvation is usually understood to mean a fatal caloric deficit. A malignant nutritional deficit (say, cretinism (iodine deficiency)) is malnutrition, not starving.

Fat people don't starve to death, but they may be malnourished.


No, that's incorrect.  Starvation is literally an extreme form of malnutrition.  Caloric deficit is only one kind of malnutrition.  You can starve from the lack of any necessary nutrient, a lack of calories, or both.
 
2014-03-27 02:59:15 PM  
No sympathy here.

Mississippi has some of the most fertile land in the region, plus mild weather and a long growing season.

It would not cost much to put those people out to farming on the land, but they will not do it.  If you see those people refusing to work, they would not get the sympathy, taxes, subsidies, and bureaucracies needed to care for them. They would also be looking for better jobs in their spare time.

Highest percentage of people on food stamps, lowest percentage of minorities on the work force; well done, Comrade Obamavich!
 
2014-03-27 02:59:53 PM  

formerfloozy: Pangea: incrdbil: We need to really focus on reversible /temporary birth control technology for men and women--and make proof that such birth control is being used as a condition of recieving public assistance. Letting people breed who can't care for themselves is a recipe for failure.

I don't know if you've been slaughtered for sharing this viewpoint yet, but your point is simultaneously the most hated and the most sensible.

Liberals defending the rights for people to reproduce uninhibitedly because it's a basic human right, is part of what has been undermining my liberalness. I have been busting my ass and happily paying a lot of money in taxes for 25 years of employment, but that's the one that is wrecking me.

Liberal here too, and I've always thought a little social engineering could go a long way. Make birth control cheap or near free, and not tie it to a doctor's visit (which is where most of the cost for came from for me) and give folks very specific sex ed. The health dept where I live was awesome, but it may not be as awesome in other places and having had to wait for months to get seen at the free clinic and taking unpaid time off of work makes it hard on working familes. People shouldn't have to give birth to children they don't want or can't afford. As far as forcing them to...eh..a little close to the line for me, but I get it. It sounds pretty punative, but we have to address the issue of having too many kids to support. I honestly don't know how to address it other than better healthcare and education.


Offer a bonus system
1K when you turn 18 to get snipped (for free) for dudes or require 10 years on the pill (provided for free) to girls if you have no kids
500 bonus for graduating highschool
 
2014-03-27 03:09:15 PM  

ShadowKamui: formerfloozy: Pangea: incrdbil: We need to really focus on reversible /temporary birth control technology for men and women--and make proof that such birth control is being used as a condition of recieving public assistance. Letting people breed who can't care for themselves is a recipe for failure.

I don't know if you've been slaughtered for sharing this viewpoint yet, but your point is simultaneously the most hated and the most sensible.

Liberals defending the rights for people to reproduce uninhibitedly because it's a basic human right, is part of what has been undermining my liberalness. I have been busting my ass and happily paying a lot of money in taxes for 25 years of employment, but that's the one that is wrecking me.

Liberal here too, and I've always thought a little social engineering could go a long way. Make birth control cheap or near free, and not tie it to a doctor's visit (which is where most of the cost for came from for me) and give folks very specific sex ed. The health dept where I live was awesome, but it may not be as awesome in other places and having had to wait for months to get seen at the free clinic and taking unpaid time off of work makes it hard on working familes. People shouldn't have to give birth to children they don't want or can't afford. As far as forcing them to...eh..a little close to the line for me, but I get it. It sounds pretty punative, but we have to address the issue of having too many kids to support. I honestly don't know how to address it other than better healthcare and education.

Offer a bonus system
1K when you turn 18 to get snipped (for free) for dudes or require 10 years on the pill (provided for free) to girls if you have no kids
500 bonus for graduating highschool


Sorry, it will never happen.

The libtards WANT to see a lot of dependent people, because that's what keeps them in business: justifies their existence---and buys them votes.  I could hire all the poor people to do make--work jibs, and spend less than is being spent now-----but they wouldn't need me, after the first few months; they would all have found better jobs.
 
2014-03-27 03:10:43 PM  

Z-clipped: Now repeat that dilemma every day for 5 years, and tell me you'd eat chick peas every time.


Of course not, and I'm not trying to minimize all the difficulties of actually being poor,  but at some point the argument needs to stop being that of throwing more money at the problem.

The uncomfortable truth about ballooning college costs, are that they're increasing directly with respect to the amount of easily accessible money available. Allowing student loan forgiveness after a college got their cut isn't going to do anything to curtail the increasing costs.

Same goes for this problem. Agriculture subsidies need to be adjusted, education needs to be increased, and available products on which benefits can be spent need to be incentivized towards healthier options.

I'm sick of being considered a borderline sociopath who hates the poors because I don't think we should just bump up the raw dollars given as benefits. I don't live in a food desert. How many generations should be able to use that as thevillain who gets blamed as justification for me needing to sign off on more benefits.

Access to resources is a real problem, but studies have shown healthy options routinely rot on the shelves. Those mini-mart and fast food options are there because culture drives them through supply and demand,
 
2014-03-27 03:18:06 PM  

olddinosaur: The libtards WANT to see a lot of dependent people, because that's what keeps them in business: justifies their existence---and buys them votes.


How do Asians fit this model? Overwhelmingly Democrat, and overwhelmingly "makers".
 
2014-03-27 03:21:02 PM  
There will be poor always, pathetically struggling, look at the good things you've got!
 
2014-03-27 03:21:54 PM  

EnderX: bdub77: The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

[img.fark.net image 387x555]

Republicans hate poor
Democrats love poor

got it!


Neither party gives a sh*t about the poor, parties want control and votes and you obtain those through people. Of course you never want people to be so poor that they'll drag you out of your house and kill you.

Now on a personal level, plenty of people on both aisles care about the poor. Democrats run on the platform that the best way to improve the plight of low income families is to improve educational opportunities for upward mobility and provide a social safety net. The downside to that is that a fairly small number of people will game the system to their benefit.

Republicans run on a platform that varies from person to person but basically amounts to 'turn off the spigots and stop giving them things and they'll be forced to get out of poverty' and 'whatever they don't have rich people will donate out of the kindness of their greedy hearts'. The downside to the GOP's plans is that rich people game the system too and essentially have the low wages they pay subsidized by the welfare system.

Increasingly the economic data looks to be in favor of the Democratic plans, although Obama is not doing them any favors by agreeing to reduce SNAP benefits.
 
2014-03-27 03:23:03 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: olddinosaur: The libtards WANT to see a lot of dependent people, because that's what keeps them in business: justifies their existence---and buys them votes.

How do Asians fit this model? Overwhelmingly Democrat, and overwhelmingly "makers".


The liberal bureaucracy is overwhelmingly white, with Asians underrepresented.  They create problems where none exist, so as to make work for themselves to do.  Parkinson's Law.
 
2014-03-27 03:23:34 PM  

olddinosaur: ShadowKamui: formerfloozy: Pangea: incrdbil: We need to really focus on reversible /temporary birth control technology for men and women--and make proof that such birth control is being used as a condition of recieving public assistance. Letting people breed who can't care for themselves is a recipe for failure.

I don't know if you've been slaughtered for sharing this viewpoint yet, but your point is simultaneously the most hated and the most sensible.

Liberals defending the rights for people to reproduce uninhibitedly because it's a basic human right, is part of what has been undermining my liberalness. I have been busting my ass and happily paying a lot of money in taxes for 25 years of employment, but that's the one that is wrecking me.

Liberal here too, and I've always thought a little social engineering could go a long way. Make birth control cheap or near free, and not tie it to a doctor's visit (which is where most of the cost for came from for me) and give folks very specific sex ed. The health dept where I live was awesome, but it may not be as awesome in other places and having had to wait for months to get seen at the free clinic and taking unpaid time off of work makes it hard on working familes. People shouldn't have to give birth to children they don't want or can't afford. As far as forcing them to...eh..a little close to the line for me, but I get it. It sounds pretty punative, but we have to address the issue of having too many kids to support. I honestly don't know how to address it other than better healthcare and education.

Offer a bonus system
1K when you turn 18 to get snipped (for free) for dudes or require 10 years on the pill (provided for free) to girls if you have no kids
500 bonus for graduating highschool

Sorry, it will never happen.

The libtards WANT to see a lot of dependent people, because that's what keeps them in business: justifies their existence---and buys them votes.  I could hire all the poor people to do make--work jibs, and spend less than is being spent now-----but they wouldn't need me, after the first few months; they would all have found better jobs.


Are you for real? Oh god, you've caught on to our secret liebrul agenda! We don't really want to make sure people have reproductive choices, we want to outbreed you! Was it that Pelosi who spilled the beans? That biatch!

Well, I guess it's back to the drawing board, fellow Demonrats.
 
2014-03-27 03:25:47 PM  

Pangea: Of course not, and I'm not trying to minimize all the difficulties of actually being poor, but at some point the argument needs to stop being that of throwing more money at the problem.


Fine.  You stop making the argument that the poor are poor because they're lazy and indolent, and we'll talk.

Pangea: The uncomfortable truth about ballooning college costs, are that they're increasing directly with respect to the amount of easily accessible money available. Allowing student loan forgiveness after a college got their cut isn't going to do anything to curtail the increasing costs.


The uncomfortable truth about all for-profit companies is that they will take advantage of any opportunity to charge people more and pay their employees less, unless society stops them.  The answer isn't to cut benefits and let people starve.  It's to write laws that keep corporations from stealing those benefits from the people they're supposed to be helping.

After you address that gaping hole in the system through which money is pouring (into the pockets of people who are already obscenely wealthy), then we can talk about whether the SNAP lifeboat is too leaky.
 
2014-03-27 03:25:53 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: olddinosaur: The libtards WANT to see a lot of dependent people, because that's what keeps them in business: justifies their existence---and buys them votes.

How do Asians fit this model? Overwhelmingly Democrat, and overwhelmingly "makers".


*clears throat*
The Democrat Party, full of the same lazy, uneducated, poor minorities that vote for them, has created a type of dazzling-bullshiat math with which they can make, *ahem*, certain people believe that spending $100 million on abortions for gay men brings in $200 million in "revinyoo" (whatever that is), and that taxing millionaires 100% would wipe out the debt while making the poors richer than their wildest masturbatory rich-torture-y fantasies.

It's why all those Chinese places are run by a family of 16 who all live upstairs - they buy into the Democrat Party's "math", so they end up sending in all their money, and because Democrats are evil machinating dumbasses, they get nothing back while thanking Democrat for the privilege.

// did that work?
// I just kept smashing my temple with a ball-peen hammer until everything tasted like ennui, so I might have blacked out
 
2014-03-27 03:29:43 PM  

Z-clipped: This text is now purple: Starvation is usually understood to mean a fatal caloric deficit. A malignant nutritional deficit (say, cretinism (iodine deficiency)) is malnutrition, not starving.

Fat people don't starve to death, but they may be malnourished.

No, that's incorrect.  Starvation is literally an extreme form of malnutrition.  Caloric deficit is only one kind of malnutrition.  You can starve from the lack of any necessary nutrient, a lack of calories, or both.


Point to an example of someone starving despite a caloric surplus.
 
2014-03-27 03:31:30 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.


The same could be said for Florida.
 
2014-03-27 03:32:31 PM  

olddinosaur: No sympathy here.

Mississippi has some of the most fertile land in the region, plus mild weather and a long growing season.

It would not cost much to put those people out to farming on the land, but they will not do it.  If you see those people refusing to work, they would not get the sympathy, taxes, subsidies, and bureaucracies needed to care for them. They would also be looking for better jobs in their spare time.

Highest percentage of people on food stamps, lowest percentage of minorities on the work force; well done, Comrade Obamavich!


You do understand that a good portion of people receiving benefits work, right? Or does that not suit your "welfare queen" narrative?
 
2014-03-27 03:36:50 PM  

Pangea: formerfloozy: Pangea: incrdbil: We need to really focus on reversible /temporary birth control technology for men and women--and make proof that such birth control is being used as a condition of recieving public assistance. Letting people breed who can't care for themselves is a recipe for failure.

I don't know if you've been slaughtered for sharing this viewpoint yet, but your point is simultaneously the most hated and the most sensible.

Liberals defending the rights for people to reproduce uninhibitedly because it's a basic human right, is part of what has been undermining my liberalness. I have been busting my ass and happily paying a lot of money in taxes for 25 years of employment, but that's the one that is wrecking me.

Liberal here too, and I've always thought a little social engineering could go a long way. Make birth control cheap or near free, and not tie it to a doctor's visit (which is where most of the cost for came from for me) and give folks very specific sex ed. The health dept where I live was awesome, but it may not be as awesome in other places and having had to wait for months to get seen at the free clinic and taking unpaid time off of work makes it hard on working familes. People shouldn't have to give birth to children they don't want or can't afford. As far as forcing them to...eh..a little close to the line for me, but I get it. It sounds pretty punative, but we have to address the issue of having too many kids to support. I honestly don't know how to address it other than better healthcare and education.

You I like. I read some of your posts upthread.

Force is indeed a bad word. I suppose for me, I consider capping of benefits based on number of children you have when entering the program to be as "forced" as I would honestly want.

It doesn't change the fact that people are still going to have babies, but if you can stretch that limited money then it's on you.

Someone else pointed out that the restriction of fertility options is usually attributed to the people most determined to reduce benefits. I have no religious dogma forcing me to believe that every fertilized egg is a life though. Personally, I've got no problem if women want an abortion in the first trimester, even though it would never be the option in my home.


Thank you. I understand the disconnect for a lot of people. The BEST thing I did was get fixed after I had my youngest. I did not want to be a single mom with three kids and I got pregnant while on BC. But even at a discount for income, it was still hugely expensive and I paid on that for a long time.
 
2014-03-27 03:36:53 PM  

d23: tlchwi02: The Southern Logic Company: When no one in your family can boil water, how can you expect them to cook a decent meal?

or when you're (best case) living in a low rent apartment or long term cheap hotel with a hot plate, one pot and maybe a microwave?

I said no hot plates in the room, Steve?  Do you have a hot plate up there?


Are you boys cooking in there?  Are you building an interociter?
 
2014-03-27 03:38:38 PM  

This text is now purple: Z-clipped: This text is now purple: Starvation is usually understood to mean a fatal caloric deficit. A malignant nutritional deficit (say, cretinism (iodine deficiency)) is malnutrition, not starving.

Fat people don't starve to death, but they may be malnourished.

No, that's incorrect.  Starvation is literally an extreme form of malnutrition.  Caloric deficit is only one kind of malnutrition.  You can starve from the lack of any necessary nutrient, a lack of calories, or both.

Point to an example of someone starving despite a caloric surplus.


I'm sure there are some cancer examples but that would be in poor taste and probably irrelevant.

When I was training weight loss clients I would tell fruit phobic people that they could probably lose weight on a diet consisting solely of whole fruit, and many people argued with me. I would like to see this diet tested empiricically...not to starvation and death of course, and none of that juicing crap either.
 
2014-03-27 03:42:15 PM  

This text is now purple: Point to an example of someone starving despite a caloric surplus.


I already mentioned scurvy.  It can and has killed countless people.  Biotin, Vitamin D, selenium + vitamin E... you can die from a lack of any of these, and many more.

You do know that people who starve from caloric deficiency don't literally die from a lack of tissue to catabolise, right?  They have plenty of available calories left when they die.  Other diseases (like organ failure) are what kills them.
 
2014-03-27 03:50:36 PM  

mayIFark: trappedspirit: Nadie_AZ: There is only a certain amount of resources

Yeah, like software.  Whoever has the most software is rich.

Software is not the resource, it's the product. The copyright of the software is the resource.


So it's an unlimited resource and suddenly this whole idea of a zero sum game looks as stupid as it ever was?
 
2014-03-27 03:57:13 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: FLMountainMan: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

It also has one of the lowest unemployment rates and costs of living.  I'd rather dig a ditch in Texas than suckle the government teat in a frozen hellhole like Minnesota.  Cali wouldn't be bad though...I could definitely suckle some teats there.

Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-depe nd ent-government_n_5035877.html

So apparently, you'd rather suckle the government teat and be poor, hot, and miserable than be cold. We have coats you know, and gloves, and hats. We do tend to make fun of people who aren't educated and like to speak their minds about how to fix things, so maybe you wouldn't fit in.


Does that include military spending?
 
2014-03-27 04:00:51 PM  

FLMountainMan: And yet they also have the highest obesity rates.  Bullshiat study is bullshiat.


you have no idea how obesity works, do you....
 
2014-03-27 04:01:22 PM  

Z-clipped: Pangea: Of course not, and I'm not trying to minimize all the difficulties of actually being poor, but at some point the argument needs to stop being that of throwing more money at the problem.

Fine.  You stop making the argument that the poor are poor because they're lazy and indolent, and we'll talk.


Thanks for painting me with that broad brush and drawing conclusions far beyond the point I was making. Does that technique typically result in people being more willing to debate you?

In all fairness, there really is no need for me to change anything in an effort to gain access to your magnificent wisdom in a discussion. The right-wing fundies are rapidly taking away these benefits regardless of my position on the merit of poor people.

The only argument that remains, is that if too much is taken away from these poor people, they'll revolt. My only response to that is the motherfarkers you're talking about have an absolutely atrocious voting rate, and it's too inconvenient for them to even get to a god damned grocery store.

What makes you think they'll get organized enough to revolt? More likely we'll hear about how inconvenient it is to get to the guillotine from the guillotine desert.
 
2014-03-27 04:26:50 PM  
It is NOT TRUE that healthy food costs more.

 A bag of flour costs FAR less than the 100 or so processed doughnuts it would make if you knew how to make doughnuts. It's not that difficult to learn.

A 10 pound bag of potatoes costs about 4 dollars and would feed you one nutritious healthy meal per day, every day of a month, if you microwaved or baked it with the skin on and did not load up too much on the butter. But people are too lazy or ignorant to wash and microwave a potato, they would rather pay 4 dollars a DAY for bag of potato chips, which have less than one potatos worth per bag in them, and are loaded with fat and salt and sugar.

You can buy chicken parts for less than one dollar a pound, and make your own fried or baked or boiled chicken for less than buying a bucket at the Colonels.

Much of Mississippi is rural, isn't it? How difficult is it to plant a few seeds of beans or greens or tomatoes and eat well all summer? You can freeze or dry more for winter if you don't know how to can. There are cheap dehydrators made in China for less than 40 dollars at Walmart. Or you could string the beans on a thread and dry them on the porch like they used to do.

People are fat and poor because they are too lazy and stupid to make an effort to better themselves. And because fat, salt and sugar are delicious, but you can't eat that shiat every day.
 
2014-03-27 04:29:16 PM  

Nadie_AZ: trappedspirit: New study claims that a quarter of the people in Mississippi can't afford food, which, when you think about it, is a bit of a self-correcting problem

No, it's not.  We will still feed them and make certain that there are always poor people around.

Interesting phrasing. There are more poor people in the world than rich. But that's the nature of the universe. There is only a certain amount of resources and those who have the most of those resources are the 'rich'. Doesn't matter what the resource is. Food, water, money, oil- whatever. The Western US is poor in water, for example.


Yeah, but you can generally make sure there's enough so no one's, y'know, at risk of  dying.
 
2014-03-27 04:32:00 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: "Teach a man to fish, he eats for a day...Feed a man to the fishes, and he never bothers you for food again." --Confucius


- Shia Lebouf
 
2014-03-27 04:33:01 PM  

sat1va: It is because they're not able to afford nutritious and high protein food," Ross Fraser, spokesperson for hunger-relief charity Feeding America



Beans and rice are extremely cheap, store well, are high protein, low fat, heart healthy, and nutritionally complete. And they are a traditional Southern dish. This guy is a liar, who is shilling to get more money.
 
2014-03-27 04:42:42 PM  

mayIFark: they also lacks access to proper medical care sometimes needed to lose weight.



ALL that you need to do to lose weight is to eat less calories and exercise more. Pass the word!
 
2014-03-27 04:47:40 PM  

bdub77: EnderX: bdub77: The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

[img.fark.net image 387x555]

Republicans hate poor
Democrats love poor

got it!

Neither party gives a sh*t about the poor, parties want control and votes and you obtain those through people. Of course you never want people to be so poor that they'll drag you out of your house and kill you.

Now on a personal level, plenty of people on both aisles care about the poor. Democrats run on the platform that the best way to improve the plight of low income families is to improve educational opportunities for upward mobility and provide a social safety net. The downside to that is that a fairly small number of people will game the system to their benefit.

Republicans run on a platform that varies from person to person but basically amounts to 'turn off the spigots and stop giving them things and they'll be forced to get out of poverty' and 'whatever they don't have rich people will donate out of the kindness of their greedy hearts'. The downside to the GOP's plans is that rich people game the system too and essentially have the low wages they pay subsidized by the welfare system.

Increasingly the economic data looks to be in favor of the Democratic plans, although Obama is not doing them any favors by agreeing to reduce SNAP benefits.


Ah no they don't have their wages subsidized by the welfare system, the welfare system does that on their own. "Rich People" pay low wages because the job requires very low skill and education. Now if the poor(uneducated, single mothers, too many children) want hire wages, turn off the tv and get your GED or go to community college.
 
2014-03-27 04:48:09 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Poorer people often have less time in which to cook food



Since when? Why do poor people have less time? They aren't working, or they wouldn't be poor. Where does the time go? Did you just make that up, along with those prices you quoted?
 
2014-03-27 05:01:54 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Four dollars in Mississippi is seven in Hawaii.



Some things cost more in Hawaii because it is a group of small islands, way out in the middle of the Pacific, and things need to be barged or flown in. They have limited land, housing and resources. Everything is far more expensive because of tourism. Etc.
 
2014-03-27 05:06:57 PM  

Nadie_AZ: If all you have and eat are those ingredients, you are going to grow tired of them very quickly.



Do junk food eaters ever get tired of soda and chips, and long for a nice fresh salad?
 
2014-03-27 05:12:58 PM  

EnderX: Ah no they don't have their wages subsidized by the welfare system, the welfare system does that on their own.


This sentence makes zero sense, even in context.

"Rich People" pay low wages because the job requires very low skill and education. Now if the poor(uneducated, single mothers, too many children) want hire wages, turn off the tv and get your GED or go to community college.

Corporations like Walmart pay intentionally low wages and direct low income families to apply for welfare, and in turn those low income families receive welfare and are additionally provided tax credits like the earned income credit. This means the federal government subsidizes the low wage industry by paying what they won't, and the low wage corporations thereby profit off the backs of the higher wage industries and every other taxpayer.

But honestly, I'm not going to argue with someone who spells 'higher' H-I-R-E.
 
2014-03-27 05:13:09 PM  

El Dudereno: Hard to create a market for kale futures when you can't store it for more than a week after harvest.



Actually, if you dry kale, it will keep in a bag on the shelf for years. It's still very good, reconstituted in soup.
 
2014-03-27 05:14:23 PM  

Onkel Buck: Bullseyed: Food shortages are always self correcting problems.

If you believe in evolution, then you should refuse to support people in overpopulated areas. Darwinism ftw.

Around here Darwin's theories are only admissable when making fun of Christians.


Idiots
/FTFY
//some idiots just happen to be Christian sometimes
 
2014-03-27 05:14:50 PM  

WeenerGord: El Dudereno: Hard to create a market for kale futures when you can't store it for more than a week after harvest.


Actually, if you dry kale, it will keep in a bag on the shelf for years. It's still very good, reconstituted in soup.


Yah umm kale chips last practically forever.
 
2014-03-27 05:15:32 PM  

WeenerGord: Dr Dreidel: Poorer people often have less time in which to cook food


Since when? Why do poor people have less time? They aren't working, or they wouldn't be poor. Where does the time go? Did you just make that up, along with those prices you quoted?



Please provide citations for this assertion in bold.

/you may find your research enlightening.
 
2014-03-27 05:16:56 PM  

WeenerGord: El Dudereno: Hard to create a market for kale futures when you can't store it for more than a week after harvest.


Actually, if you dry kale, it will keep in a bag on the shelf for years. It's still very good, reconstituted in soup.


Bad example.

Romaine lettuce would have been better.
 
2014-03-27 05:27:55 PM  

hasty ambush: Angelica Hernandez (left) and her mother, Gloria Nunez, struggle to make ends meet on a very limited budget.


Have you seen their ends?  You'd struggle too.
 
2014-03-27 05:37:28 PM  

freetomato: Have you  ever heard the term "food desert"?  It's kind of hard to get fresh fruit and vegetables if the only stores you can get to are mini marts that only carry junk food.



The mini marts would carry fresh fruit and veg if ppl would buy it. California gas stations carry fresh fruit and veg, because ppl are health conscious in Calif and it sells.
 
2014-03-27 05:59:11 PM  

bdub77: EnderX: Ah no they don't have their wages subsidized by the welfare system, the welfare system does that on their own.

This sentence makes zero sense, even in context.

"Rich People" pay low wages because the job requires very low skill and education. Now if the poor(uneducated, single mothers, too many children) want hire wages, turn off the tv and get your GED or go to community college.

Corporations like Walmart pay intentionally low wages and direct low income families to apply for welfare, and in turn those low income families receive welfare and are additionally provided tax credits like the earned income credit. This means the federal government subsidizes the low wage industry by paying what they won't, and the low wage corporations thereby profit off the backs of the higher wage industries and every other taxpayer.

But honestly, I'm not going to argue with someone who spells 'higher' H-I-R-E.


Intentionally low!! The wages they bargain for are what their skill level can demand. Families!! Do not have children if you do not have the education and skill level to support one. What this means is uneducated people who do not have a very high skill level MUST be subsidized by the government because they are not intelligent enough to stop making decision that are harmful to themselves and society.
 
2014-03-27 05:59:14 PM  

MBooda: States like Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North and South Carolina and Virginia were on the receiving end of a TON of federal (mostly military) spending in the 1860s and hardly contributed a penny in tax revenue.

/ingrates



It's because their money was worthless.
 
2014-03-27 06:04:40 PM  

Pangea: incrdbil: We need to really focus on reversible /temporary birth control technology for men and women--and make proof that such birth control is being used as a condition of recieving public assistance. Letting people breed who can't care for themselves is a recipe for failure.

I don't know if you've been slaughtered for sharing this viewpoint yet, but your point is simultaneously the most hated and the most sensible.

Liberals defending the rights for people to reproduce uninhibitedly because it's a basic human right, is part of what has been undermining my liberalness. I have been busting my ass and happily paying a lot of money in taxes for 25 years of employment, but that's the one that is wrecking me.


It iis a basic human right as long as you are paying for it.  But when others (the tax payer) have to pay the freight for your birth control, abortion or the financial consequences of you committing parenthood that you cannot afford they should get to have some say so in the matter. regarding your "reproductive right"
 
2014-03-27 06:10:23 PM  

thefatbasturd: squirrelflavoredyogurt: FLMountainMan: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

It also has one of the lowest unemployment rates and costs of living.  I'd rather dig a ditch in Texas than suckle the government teat in a frozen hellhole like Minnesota.  Cali wouldn't be bad though...I could definitely suckle some teats there.

Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-depe nd ent-government_n_5035877.html

So apparently, you'd rather suckle the government teat and be poor, hot, and miserable than be cold. We have coats you know, and gloves, and hats. We do tend to make fun of people who aren't educated and like to speak their minds about how to fix things, so maybe you wouldn't fit in.

But apparently they don't teach you to read or use your brain there. See where one of the main points of his post was lower unemployment rates? Means he could more likely get an actual JOB in Texas and thar is preferable to him than living on assistance.


Funny you should talk about reading comprehension. Texas takes more federal money than they pay in because the actual jobs there don't pay workers enough to survive off government assistance. So, even if he had an actual job he'd still be sucking at the government teat because it would most likely be a WalMart or fast food type job that doesn't pay a living wage and still requires government help.

If you really had the brain you're suggesting I lacked you could have figured that shiat out on your own not wasted my time to put you in your place, idiot.
 
2014-03-27 06:14:05 PM  

hasty ambush: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.No it doesn't.  In fact Texas pays more than it gets back unlike other bIg population States such as California , New York and Florida

[www.ritholtz.com image 600x515]


You still living in 2010? Cause you map and data are. Why don't you catch on up to 2014? Because then you'd be wrong?
 
2014-03-27 06:23:17 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: hasty ambush: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.No it doesn't.  In fact Texas pays more than it gets back unlike other bIg population States such as California , New York and Florida

[www.ritholtz.com image 600x515]

You still living in 2010? Cause you map and data are. Why don't you catch on up to 2014? Because then you'd be wrong?


Well maybe that extra federal money is to cover the over 10 billion a year Texas has to pay for Illegal Immigrants. Immigration? That is a Federal responsibility, isn't it?
 
2014-03-27 06:27:27 PM  

EnderX: squirrelflavoredyogurt: dittybopper: squirrelflavoredyogurt: CruJones: Yet it's also one of the fattest states..

As the article pointed out, because the cheap food is the high carb food that has little nutritional value but lots of calories. Science is really really hard, I know, but you should really look into it.

Many of the poor people in the US have the highest obesity rates, this has been known for years and it's because of the reason I pointed out. It's more fun to feel superior to poor and fat people though, right?

The implication of the headline that people might starve because they "can't afford food".

Which is bullshiat, because they are getting enough calories.  More than enough, in fact.

Now it might not be healthiest kind of food, but it is food that will keep you from starving.  And if you go hungry for a day or two or three at the end of the month, well, that's what fat is for:  To store calories to bridge the gap between meals when times are hard.

I'm not going to get worked up about a fat person talking about how they don't have much to eat for a couple of days until they get their check*.

And I say that as a fat person.

Now, you show me a gaunt person who is obviously suffering from malnutrition due to lack of caloric intake that isn't voluntary, and we'll talk.

*Payroll or welfare, doesn't matter

So your position is screw the health and well being of poor people because we make sure they have enough calories to stay alive. They don't need any proper nutrition, they don't need to be healthy.

We subsidize the cheap crappy food they eat which barely keeps them alive. Why not subsidize healthier food? Why not provide free seeds and garden plots and let them grow some of their own food? The model your championing, is the least efficient and worst system in terms of cost to nutrition. You suggestion keeps them poor. If you don't eat right you don't perform as well mentally or physically. Want chance do they ever have to get off welfare if all ...


The payouts from the chart show recipients in Minnesota getting less money in 2014 than in Mississippi. Why is it that Mississippi has so many more people unable to afford food than Minnesota does? Are you suggesting the cost of living in Mississippi is considerably higher than it is in Minnesota?

The cost of living adjustments are based on a family of four. I'm willing to bet Mississippi has a lot more larger families on SNAP than other states, based upon it's conservative, religious, abstinence only teaching, etc. Not gonna bother to look that up and qualify it though, just my opinion. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong if I am.
 
2014-03-27 06:30:09 PM  

hasty ambush: DROxINxTHExWIND: hasty ambush: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.No it doesn't.  In fact Texas pays more than it gets back unlike other bIg population States such as California , New York and Florida

[www.ritholtz.com image 600x515]

That is one of the worst charts I think I've ever seen.

Does not change the fact that Texas does not even break even in money sent to the Feds vs what it gets back and it has been that way for a long time. California used to be a donor state  but  in recent years has become a welfare state.  New York is trending that way  Look how far it status has changed from 2004:compared to 2010 (previous post)
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 743x505]


Becuase Federal spending also takes in things like Naitonal Parks, Military spending etc total federal spending is not really a good measure as a state were the Feds own a lot of the land or has a lot of military bases  would have the number slant against it  while  measurign just welfare dollars  gives a different picture:

[imageshack.com image 850x176]
[imageshack.com image 850x1276]


Posting charts without sources and/or dates is not a valid argument. If you have recent data from a credible source please provide the link, if not, then who are you trying to convince?
 
2014-03-27 06:42:30 PM  

BgJonson79: squirrelflavoredyogurt: FLMountainMan: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

It also has one of the lowest unemployment rates and costs of living.  I'd rather dig a ditch in Texas than suckle the government teat in a frozen hellhole like Minnesota.  Cali wouldn't be bad though...I could definitely suckle some teats there.

Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-depe nd ent-government_n_5035877.html

So apparently, you'd rather suckle the government teat and be poor, hot, and miserable than be cold. We have coats you know, and gloves, and hats. We do tend to make fun of people who aren't educated and like to speak their minds about how to fix things, so maybe you wouldn't fit in.

Does that include military spending?


I'm sure it does. Does that somehow invalidate it? The military pays it's people who spend their money in Texas. The same as they pay people to maintain national parks, highways, etc.

Suggesting that we should take military spending out as opposed to highway maintenance, national park maintenance, infrastructure, etc. is a silly argument. The money goes to the state, it's spent in the state, it enriches the state. Illinois has the great lakes naval base and still manages to be second in payouts vs pay ins.

I haven't seen a chart that breaks down federal spending by what it goes to, if you have one, I'll be happy to take a look.
 
2014-03-27 06:45:02 PM  
huffkinpo again ?
 
2014-03-27 06:54:19 PM  

WeenerGord: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Four dollars in Mississippi is seven in Hawaii.


Some things cost more in Hawaii because it is a group of small islands, way out in the middle of the Pacific, and things need to be barged or flown in. They have limited land, housing and resources. Everything is far more expensive because of tourism. Etc.


Which the federal government takes into account with a program called COLA (cost of living adjustment). This explains why Hawaii gets more money than Mississippi, but fails to account for why more people in Mississippi are suggesting they're starving. Many states get less money payouts, according to the chart linked in the article, than Mississippi.

The only thing I can see that might explain why Mississippi is in the situation it is, is that the COLA is based on a family of four. Mississippi may have larger families because of it's horrible education system, it's sexual health education specifically.
 
2014-03-27 07:07:19 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: thefatbasturd: squirrelflavoredyogurt: FLMountainMan: TheDirtyNacho: Mrs.Sharpier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_ n _4855191.html

The south is an absolute hell hole. I would fully support an anarchist revolt against the government there. When Obama meddles in the affairs of the world, other world leaders should just point at Mississippi and laugh at him. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigrants there turn around and go right back to Mexico.


I live in Texas, and I enjoy it for it is a beautiful place with friendly people, but I would not want to be poor here.

We don't have any state income tax, which is attractive to many - but that also means that social services are almost non-existent.  Ditto to things like public transportation.  If you are poor, or worse, elderly and poor, life is difficult.

It also has one of the lowest unemployment rates and costs of living.  I'd rather dig a ditch in Texas than suckle the government teat in a frozen hellhole like Minnesota.  Cali wouldn't be bad though...I could definitely suckle some teats there.

Except that once again you'd be completely farking wrong, as Minnesota pays more in taxes than it gets from the government and Texas takes more federal money than it pays in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-depe nd ent-government_n_5035877.html

So apparently, you'd rather suckle the government teat and be poor, hot, and miserable than be cold. We have coats you know, and gloves, and hats. We do tend to make fun of people who aren't educated and like to speak their minds about how to fix things, so maybe you wouldn't fit in.

But apparently they don't teach you to read or use your brain there. See where one of the main points of his post was lower unemployment rates? Means he could more likely get an actual JOB in Texas and thar is preferable to him than living on assistance.

Funny you should talk about reading comprehension. Texas takes more federal money than they pay in because the actual jobs there don't pay workers enough to survive off government assistance. So, even if he had an actual job he'd still be sucking at the government teat because it would most likely be a WalMart or fast food type job that doesn't pay a living wage and still requires government help.

If you really had the brain you're suggesting I lacked you could have figured that shiat out on your own not wasted my time to put you in your place, idiot.


Oh. So your a "if I am proven to be wrong on a point someone else made I'll just keep repeatjng MY point louder all the while ignoring the ACTUAL point" type. Gotcha...
 
2014-03-27 07:33:49 PM  

thefatbasturd: ignoring the ACTUAL point



We are not allowed to mention the actual point
 
2014-03-27 07:43:43 PM  

WeenerGord: thefatbasturd: ignoring the ACTUAL point


We are not allowed to mention the actual point


I thought we were just supposed to not mention the war, Basil.
 
2014-03-27 08:28:32 PM  

thefatbasturd: WeenerGord: thefatbasturd: ignoring the ACTUAL point


We are not allowed to mention the actual point

I thought we were just supposed to not mention the war, Basil.



Don't mention that either, or the silly walk
 
2014-03-27 08:58:34 PM  

EnderX: Intentionally low!! The wages they bargain for are what their skill level can demand. Families!! Do not have children if you do not have the education and skill level to support one. What this means is uneducated people who do not have a very high skill level MUST be subsidized by the government because they are not intelligent enough to stop making decision that are harmful to themselves and society.


You should probably stop breathing before you hurt your brain.
 
2014-03-27 09:18:17 PM  

bdub77: EnderX: Intentionally low!! The wages they bargain for are what their skill level can demand. Families!! Do not have children if you do not have the education and skill level to support one. What this means is uneducated people who do not have a very high skill level MUST be subsidized by the government because they are not intelligent enough to stop making decision that are harmful to themselves and society.

You should probably stop breathing before you hurt your brain.


Its the childish insults at the end of all your statements that subtly make your point for you.

You truly have a dizzying intellect, please go on.
 
2014-03-27 09:27:01 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: This explains why Hawaii gets more money than Mississippi, but fails to account for why more people in Mississippi are suggesting they're starving.


They didn't say they were starving.
 
2014-03-27 10:10:27 PM  

EnderX: bdub77: EnderX: bdub77: The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

[img.fark.net image 387x555]

Republicans hate poor
Democrats love poor

got it!

Neither party gives a sh*t about the poor, parties want control and votes and you obtain those through people. Of course you never want people to be so poor that they'll drag you out of your house and kill you.

Now on a personal level, plenty of people on both aisles care about the poor. Democrats run on the platform that the best way to improve the plight of low income families is to improve educational opportunities for upward mobility and provide a social safety net. The downside to that is that a fairly small number of people will game the system to their benefit.

Republicans run on a platform that varies from person to person but basically amounts to 'turn off the spigots and stop giving them things and they'll be forced to get out of poverty' and 'whatever they don't have rich people will donate out of the kindness of their greedy hearts'. The downside to the GOP's plans is that rich people game the system too and essentially have the low wages they pay subsidized by the welfare system.

Increasingly the economic data looks to be in favor of the Democratic plans, although Obama is not doing them any favors by agreeing to reduce SNAP benefits.

Ah no they don't have their wages subsidized by the welfare system, the welfare system does that on their own. "Rich People" pay low wages because the job requires very low skill and education. Now if the poor(uneducated, single mothers, too many children) want hire wages, turn off the tv and get your GED or go to community college.


Seriously I get sick of this damn argument. Kust having an education doesn't mean you automatically get a better job. Not all poor people are stupid, lazy, unemployed single moms sucking the gubmint titty. I am an intelligent, educated vet, yet I saw plenty just like me waiting to get some help. It's not a farking lark not being able to get by on your own. Have some farking compassion.
 
2014-03-27 10:16:49 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: WeenerGord: Dr Dreidel: Poorer people often have less time in which to cook food


Since when? Why do poor people have less time? They aren't working, or they wouldn't be poor. Where does the time go? Did you just make that up, along with those prices you quoted?


Please provide citations for this assertion in bold.

/you may find your research enlightening.


This will cause me to have a rage stroke, I swear. WeenerGord, People who are poor work. Poor people work and get welfare. Working people qualify for food stamps. fark I farking hate that farking argument. I hope that you and yours NEVER goes hungry despite your best efforts. Because that would mean you would have to hate yourself for being an unemployed poor loser.
 
2014-03-27 10:28:12 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: squirrelflavoredyogurt: This explains why Hawaii gets more money than Mississippi, but fails to account for why more people in Mississippi are suggesting they're starving.

They didn't say they were starving.


SHHHH! Don't confuse him with actual facts...
 
2014-03-27 11:20:37 PM  

formerfloozy: People who are poor work.



Not all of them. Maybe you do, but not all of them.

When I was in high school, there were certain girls who screwed anything, constantly, with the express intention of getting pregnant so that they could drop out of school, get money, and move out of their parents house and get drunk and do drugs every night of the week, and never work. We all knew it, because they bragged about it, and planned for it. I saw these girls, and I saw them later in life, with their hungry looking, dirty, abused and beaten children by who knows how many different fathers. I saw them and heard them planning to get pregnant again because they could get x amount of dollars more for another child, and that would buy more beer. I hope you don't think I'm making this up. Generations of these poor came up with no one in the family working, unless you count prostitution and crime as work, because that is what they got in to. If you were poor and lived in a big city, you had to have seen this, too. It's TRUE. And it only began to slow down when Clinton changed the laws to make welfare harder to get if you didn't work.

If you are not like that, if you are better than that, then prove it. Don't identify with or defend the people who chose to live this way. And don't blame me for telling the truth about how some people, other than yourself, chose to live.

It's the little kids I felt sorry for, with moms like that, and no fathers, but plenty of strange "boyfriends." Those poor kids didn't have much of a chance, did they. Do you know about the "crab in a bucket" syndrome? When they grow up a certain way, it is difficult to get out.

Do other farkers know about people who lived like this? Is this another one of those things that we are never supposed to talk about?
 
2014-03-27 11:46:18 PM  

WeenerGord: formerfloozy: People who are poor work.


Not all of them. Maybe you do, but not all of them.

When I was in high school, there were certain girls who screwed anything, constantly, with the express intention of getting pregnant so that they could drop out of school, get money, and move out of their parents house and get drunk and do drugs every night of the week, and never work. We all knew it, because they bragged about it, and planned for it. I saw these girls, and I saw them later in life, with their hungry looking, dirty, abused and beaten children by who knows how many different fathers. I saw them and heard them planning to get pregnant again because they could get x amount of dollars more for another child, and that would buy more beer. I hope you don't think I'm making this up. Generations of these poor came up with no one in the family working, unless you count prostitution and crime as work, because that is what they got in to. If you were poor and lived in a big city, you had to have seen this, too. It's TRUE. And it only began to slow down when Clinton changed the laws to make welfare harder to get if you didn't work.

If you are not like that, if you are better than that, then prove it. Don't identify with or defend the people who chose to live this way. And don't blame me for telling the truth about how some people, other than yourself, chose to live.

It's the little kids I felt sorry for, with moms like that, and no fathers, but plenty of strange "boyfriends." Those poor kids didn't have much of a chance, did they. Do you know about the "crab in a bucket" syndrome? When they grow up a certain way, it is difficult to get out.

Do other farkers know about people who lived like this? Is this another one of those things that we are never supposed to talk about?


Yeah, I know people who live like that.  But here's the thing, are you aware or even care, that there are people who don't? That not everyone should be tarred with the same brush?  Essentially you are saying "I know some assholes who live like this, therefore everyone lives like this." It leaves no room for anything other than contempt.  fark man, do you know how many people I sat with in the food stamp office who were employed and taking unpaid time off  of work to apply for assistance? How many of us dropped off our kids at daycare or willing (or not so willing) relatives so we could go to our second or third job to try to make ends meet?  Just because I'm not starving now and have a great job doesn't mean I didn't struggle or forget what it was like.  And you know the shiat of it?  I wasn't even that bad off compared to some.I came from a middle class family and joined the military right out of high school.  I worked through the ranks, and then was medically retired.  The military was all I knew, and I was good at it, but life had other plans. My husband wanted me to stay at home with my kids while he worked, so we decided that was for the best.  I was out of the work force for almost 3 years when he left me for another woman after stealing my retirement.  Let me reiterate...not  everyone chooses that life.  I can't think of anyone who would voluntarily submit themselves to the humiliation and judgement of those who think they are better than they are, simply because they need help.  You know, people like you.  Not everyone who struggles is a piece of shiat. But keep telling yourself that you are superior to all of us poor, uneducated, sluts.  I guess everyone has to have something to cling to when they feel small.  You can talk about it, it's not taboo or illegal.  Just please be aware that the people in your convenient anecdote do not represent or reflect on all of us. Not even on most of us. I don't have to prove anything to you just because I have compassion for others.  Just like I said to another poster, I hope you never find yourself in that position.
 
2014-03-28 12:40:00 AM  

formerfloozy: Not everyone who struggles is a piece of shiat. But keep telling yourself that you are superior to all of us poor, uneducated, sluts


You are what you think you are. Everyone is.

I told you that you didn't have to identify with the people who lived like that, but you did it anyway, even though you know people like that too. You say you don't have to prove yourself, but then you told me the story of your life, to prove yourself. I never said that everyone was like this, or that you were like that, or even mentioned you, until you replied to me. And once you did, I gave you several options to not identify yourself with those who live like that. You tarred yourself with the same brush, so that you could lash out at me, in self pity and rage, and direct your accusations about your sufferings in poverty at me, as if I had anything to do with it. You did this to other posters, too.

Could it be that your husband left you because you have a habit of lashing out in accusation and rage, when you feel self pity? Is this what you cling to, when you feel small? If so, be aware that this is a form of abuse, too. If you are like this all the time, no wonder he left. Be aware that other people have feelings too, and that it is not all right for you to attack them to make yourself fell better.

Some women do this all the time. It is another thing that is never talked about. I have only seen it mentioned in a (recent) movie, once. Janeane Garofalo , in one of her movies, I think it was  Girl's Best Friend, in a rare flash of insight, realized that "when a man is good to her, she punishes him for it." Do you think that you do this, or do you know anyone who does this?
 
2014-03-28 01:16:18 AM  
I'm yet to see too many folks starving to death [unlike many other nations].
 
2014-03-28 09:06:09 AM  
Paying guys to get snipped is fruitless. One unsnipped guy can do a lot of damage. If you want to get effective population control, you incentivize the sterilization (or use long term birth control methods like a norplant) on impoverished women.

Lets face it, we have enough stupid, poor trash, and looks like we'll keep winding up with them, we really can't afford to let them breed.  I'm leaning more towards a straight up cash incentive for permanent sterilization, and a requirement for long term birth control like norplant for women on public assistance.

Or..you go hard core and make any unauthorized child birth by someone on public assistance who also has a criminal history and/or drug problems subject to having the child taken by the state and put up for adoption by capable parents, and not wait for them to screw up the kid for life before doing so.
 
2014-03-28 01:26:02 PM  
report there was at least one time in the last 12 months when they did not have enough money to buy the food they or their families needed.

By this test if the day before payday I take my last $20 and go out drinking instead of staying home and ordering pizza I would be part of the starving 25%.
 
2014-03-28 06:52:40 PM  

WeenerGord: formerfloozy:I told you that you didn't have to identify with the people who lived like that, but you did it anyway, even though you know people like that too.


You misunderstood, I was trying to convey that your impression of all poor people as unemployed losers was false. But whatevs.

You tarred yourself with the same brush, so that you could lash out at me, in self pity and rage, and direct your accusations about your sufferings in poverty at me, as if I had anything to do with it. You did this to other posters, too.

 Oh lordy.  The rage was directed at the argument that poor people who receive assistance don't work, are uneducated, are just basically human pieces of garbage. I just wish people would stop advancing that myth.  It does make me froth with anger, because I experienced it as well.  It can literally happen to anyone in this country, sadly. But whatevs.

Could it be that your husband left you because you have a habit of lashing out in accusation and rage, when you feel self pity? Is this what you cling to, when you feel small? If so, be aware that this is a form of abuse, too. If you are like this all the time, no wonder he left. Be aware that other people have feelings too, and that it is not all right for you to attack them to make yourself fell better.

I wish that had been the case and not that he was just selfish.  If I had the power to nag someone hard enough to abandon their children and steal from their wife, I would have used my evil harridan powers to nag him to death.  That way I would have got an insurance check.  While we are making baseless assumptions about people's personalities, allow me to return the favor.  I am guessing you lack empathy because your daddy duct taped you to a tree while you were potty training and threw random objects at your head,such as coke bottles, tiny pieces of gravel, and dead squirrels while screaming passages from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."

Some women do this all the time. It is another thing that is never talked about. I have only seen it mentioned in a (recent) movie, once. Janeane Garofalo , in one of her movies, I think it was  Girl's Best Friend, in a rare flash of insight, realized that "when a man is good to her, she punishes him for it." Do you think that you do this, or do you know anyone who does this?

That must have been scarring on your young mind, and I want you to know that I saw a musical where there was a guy that that happened to and he was murdered and made into a meat pie.  You probably want to rethink your life so you don't end up as pie.
 
2014-03-28 07:23:48 PM  

formerfloozy: I am guessing you lack empathy because your daddy duct taped you to a tree while you were potty training and threw random objects at your head,such as coke bottles, tiny pieces of gravel, and dead squirrels while screaming passages from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."



Did that ugly fantasy of yours, help you to feel better about yourself? I hope that is not how you potty trained your own children.

My empathy is for the poor abused, unwanted, mistreated children of these welfare queens and the dogs that fathered them. Not to mention the taxpayers, like you, who have to go on paying for more and more of them. Very likely the advances in DNA testing, and the state identifying the deadbeat fathers and garnishing their wages as payback to the state for the welfare, has also contributed to the slight decline in unwanted births, that were conceived simply to qualify for a free handout. Dogs might think twice if they might have to pay for it some day. If you think that all of the people on welfare are hard working and educated, you must be lying to yourself. You said that you know "people like that" so who do you think you are fooling? Unless your real intention is to make the discussion all about you.

So getting back to you. I have been wondering. You said that you had only 10 dollars for food, because you applied for benefits immediately after your ex finally paid your child support. So at the poorest, most hungry time of your life, you actually had two incomes? Did they each, only give you 5 dollars? Where did all the other money go? You said that you came from a middle class family. They couldn't have helped you out in some way? Your parents wouldn't let you come home, feed you, let you leave the kids with grandma while you tried to find work? Did you know about WIC? Food banks? Couldn't you have done anything at all, other than your sad story about one weiner a day? What about the months before. You could never have saved a few dollars per month, for an emergency just like this? You could never have had a bite of food in the house, from one month to the next? Beans and rice cost less than a dollar a pound and keep dry for years. Buy some today. Keep it stashed in the cupboard in case your ex decides to pay child support again, causing you to have only 10 dollars for weiners for the month.

I think I was right about you and the lashing out, though. Here I am, showing empathy, and offering you solutions to your situation, after you lashed out at me, twice, in your previous comment, and will probably lash out again. You said, twice, that you froth with anger and rage, that you would have killed your ex, and that I might be made into a meat pie. You don't sound like a very nice person. Just saying.
 
2014-03-28 08:06:33 PM  

WeenerGord: Did that ugly fantasy of yours, help you to feel better about yourself?


I'm a little hurt you didn't find it funny.  I know I giggled when you pretended to care about my marriage and the rage issues caused by having a vagina.  As to the rest of your screed, meh. Is that lashy enough for you? I'm just asking you to consider ending the fake empathy and trying on the real thing.
 
2014-03-28 09:28:28 PM  

formerfloozy: EnderX: bdub77: EnderX: bdub77: The GOP finally has a way to break the cycle of poverty!

[img.fark.net image 387x555]

Republicans hate poor
Democrats love poor

got it!

Neither party gives a sh*t about the poor, parties want control and votes and you obtain those through people. Of course you never want people to be so poor that they'll drag you out of your house and kill you.

Now on a personal level, plenty of people on both aisles care about the poor. Democrats run on the platform that the best way to improve the plight of low income families is to improve educational opportunities for upward mobility and provide a social safety net. The downside to that is that a fairly small number of people will game the system to their benefit.

Republicans run on a platform that varies from person to person but basically amounts to 'turn off the spigots and stop giving them things and they'll be forced to get out of poverty' and 'whatever they don't have rich people will donate out of the kindness of their greedy hearts'. The downside to the GOP's plans is that rich people game the system too and essentially have the low wages they pay subsidized by the welfare system.

Increasingly the economic data looks to be in favor of the Democratic plans, although Obama is not doing them any favors by agreeing to reduce SNAP benefits.

Ah no they don't have their wages subsidized by the welfare system, the welfare system does that on their own. "Rich People" pay low wages because the job requires very low skill and education. Now if the poor(uneducated, single mothers, too many children) want hire wages, turn off the tv and get your GED or go to community college.

Seriously I get sick of this damn argument. Kust having an education doesn't mean you automatically get a better job. Not all poor people are stupid, lazy, unemployed single moms sucking the gubmint titty. I am an intelligent, educated vet, yet I saw plenty just like me waiting to get some help. It's not a farking lark n ...


I have compassion, but since it is not connect to my agreeing to not hold people responsible for their own actions and decisions, and also not connected to me being in favor of far reaching entitlement programs. I'm certain a majority of liberals will "feel" I have no compassion because of these standards I hold.
 
Displayed 208 of 208 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report