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 209
    More: Sad, Mississippians, Feeding America, Electronic Benefit Transfer, cartons  
•       •       •

3510 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.net


/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



www.ritholtz.com

 
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.com

200 calories of broccoli:
statica.wisegeek.com

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.com




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
imageshack.com
 
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.org

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
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  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