# Who gets food stamps?



## Irish Pixie

This is from last year for the fiscal year 2013. 

"Nationally, most of the people who receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are white. According to 2013 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, 40.2 percent of SNAP recipients are white, 25.7 percent are black, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 2.1 percent are Asian and 1.2 percent are Native American."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html


----------



## Txsteader

It does stand to reason, doesn't it....since the majority of the population is white, that the greatest number of food stamp recipients in a recession would be white?

Blacks seem to be disproportionately represented, relative to their population numbers. I've read that they're quite disillusioned with the job Obama has done for them.


----------



## Farmerga

What difference does race of the recipient make, unless one is racist?


----------



## Wolf mom

what you need to do is compare your statistics from the notoriously slanted Huffington Post with the hopefully more accurate US census to get a more complete picture rather than bomb dropping. 

So... population breakdown for June, 2013 
non-hispanic whites - 63%
Hispanics - 17%
Blacks - 12.3%
Asians - 5%
multi-racials - 2.4 %

2015 figures are slightly different with white only pop. decreasing and blacks increasing. 

When you compare figures, it kinda puts things into perspective and any innuendos get put to rest.

The next set of figures to look at would be the work force. But you can do that.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> This is from last year for the fiscal year 2013.
> 
> "Nationally, most of the people who receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are white. According to 2013 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, 40.2 percent of SNAP recipients are white, 25.7 percent are black, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 2.1 percent are Asian and 1.2 percent are Native American."
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html



Using the numbers in the article, provided they are true, that means that even though white Americans may be the majority of the snap recipients only 14% of the over all white population in America are on stamps where as 40% of the over all American black population are on food stamps. 

Nearly half of the population of black America are on stamps.


----------



## Farmerga

City Bound said:


> Using the numbers in the article, provided they are true, that means that even though white Americans may be the majority of the snap recipients only 14% of the over all white population in America are on stamps where as 40% of the over all American black population are on food stamps.
> 
> *Nearly half of the population of black America are on stamps*.


Well, Obama's policies have been shown to disproportionately harm the minority communities.


----------



## Cornhusker

Obama likes to brag about how many people he's put on food stamps.
With his war on coal and other job killing initiatives, it's no surprise.
I saw a thing the other day, don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but 49% of Americans are on some kind of assistance.
Half of America needs help while the other half helps.
The numbers just show what a failure Obama really is.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Again, some posters seem to think that I did the research indicated in the article. I did not. I simply posted it for discussion. If you (collective you) have an issue with the information please contact the US Department of Agriculture who compiled the statistics. Telling me "duh", accusing me of "bomb dropping", insinuating I'm racist, and the like isn't nice. Expected, but not nice.


----------



## scooter

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, some posters seem to think that I did the research indicated in the article. I did not. I simply posted it for discussion. If you (collective you) have an issue with the information please contact the US Department of Agriculture who compiled the statistics. Telling me "duh", accusing me of "bomb dropping", insinuating I'm racist, and the like isn't nice. Expected, but not nice.


 Did you not post this thread for discussion?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, some posters seem to think that I did the research indicated in the article. I did not. I simply posted it for discussion. If you (collective you) have an issue with the information please contact the US Department of Agriculture who compiled the statistics. Telling me "duh", accusing me of "bomb dropping", insinuating I'm racist, and the like isn't nice. Expected, but not nice.


Nobody is denying that the stats are, likely, correct. I simply don't see the relevance and others have pointed out how the stats are misleading, which they are. If you want to discuss the topic, discuss the topic. 

I assume you are trying to say that I insinuated that you are racist? Well, what were you trying to say by posting these stats? Does it make a difference, in your world, what color the recipients of food stamps are? Are you trying to insinuate that those, against the Food Stamp program are only against it because they perceive that a majority of the recipients are not white? The fact of the matter is that either, you care what color they are, or, you are insinuating that we care. 

Ok, Discuss.


----------



## arabian knight

Farmerga said:


> Nobody is denying that the stats are, likely, correct. I simply don't see the relevance and others have pointed out how the stats are misleading, which they are. If you want to discuss the topic, discuss the topic.
> 
> I assume you are trying to say that I insinuated that you are racist? Well, what were you trying to say by posting these stats? Does it make a difference, in your world, what color the recipients of food stamps are? Are you trying to insinuate that those, against the Food Stamp program are only against it because they perceive that a majority of the recipients are not white? The fact of the matter is that either, you care what color they are, or, you are insinuating that we care.
> 
> Ok, Discuss.


It does not in my area people don't give a rip if you are white, black yellow of purple if you are food stamps why would some left leaning Obama loving publication like Huffingting Puffingting Post care? Just to once again fuel the fire that Obama lite years ago to keep it burning and those that repeat such articles can pass it on and do the same.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, some posters seem to think that I did the research indicated in the article. I did not. I simply posted it for discussion. If you (collective you) have an issue with the information please contact the US Department of Agriculture who compiled the statistics. Telling me "duh", accusing me of "bomb dropping", insinuating I'm racist, and the like isn't nice. Expected, but not nice.


Not a dog pile, just people who can see through the BS of the article.
Hopefully you are appreciative of learning the truth.
You're welcome


----------



## 1948CaseVAI

Farmerga said:


> What difference does race of the recipient make, unless one is racist?


Because the goal is to find ways to get people OFF of food stamps, but you cannot begin to understand how to do that until you learn what there is to know about who gets them, then you need to figure out why. 

It is a lot like spending time doing victimology for a homicide investigation where the perp is unknow, which I happen to have done a lot of. The goal of the investigation is not to learn all there is to know about a dead person, it is to help you understand their life so that you can better discern who may have wanted to end it.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> This is from last year for the fiscal year 2013.
> 
> "Nationally, most of the people who receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are white. According to 2013 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, 40.2 percent of SNAP recipients are white, 25.7 percent are black, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 2.1 percent are Asian and 1.2 percent are Native American."


SO your stats of people getting food stamps:
40.2% white
25.7% black
10.3% Hispanic
2.1% Asian
1.2% Native American

Lets now look at the population of the U.S.

62.6% white
13.2% black
17.4% Hispanic
5.4% Asian
1.2% Native American

How about the following for headlines: 
"Twice as many Blacks get food stamps as should"
or
"People of Asian descent in America only take half the food stamps as a percent of their population."
or this one:
"Blacks overwhelmingly use food stamps more than any other race in the U.S.A."
How about "Obama's policies prove overwhelmingly bad for Blacks"


----------



## Heritagefarm

Let's not forget that blacks are also disproportionately poor and discriminated against. But, that is most likely their own fault, of course.


----------



## scooter

Huffington Post has been caught lying before.
*Huffington Post Caught BLATANTLY Lying About ...*

*Huffington Post caught lying to attack gun rights | Examiner ...*

*The Huffington Post - RationalWiki*

*Huffington Post Lying Again&#8230;.. This One Was An Easy Spot ...*


----------



## Irish Pixie

scooter said:


> Huffington Post has been caught lying before.
> *Huffington Post Caught BLATANTLY Lying About ...*
> 
> *Huffington Post caught lying to attack gun rights | Examiner ...*
> 
> *The Huffington Post - RationalWiki*
> 
> *Huffington Post Lying Again&#8230;.. This One Was An Easy Spot ...*


Um. The statistics are directly from the US Department of Agriculture. The proof is on the bottom of the graph where it states, Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> Let's not forget that blacks are also disproportionately poor and discriminated against. But, that is most likely their own fault, of course.


 Not their own fault, but, rather the fault of the Federal government. It is the Federal "war on poverty" that has created much of the multi-generational poverty in the African American community.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Let's not forget that blacks are also disproportionately poor and discriminated against. But, that is most likely their own fault, of course.


Yes, they are. I don't think that is taken into consideration by many people tho.


----------



## Heritagefarm

scooter said:


> Huffington Post has been caught lying before.
> *Huffington Post Caught BLATANTLY Lying About ...*
> 
> *Huffington Post caught lying to attack gun rights | Examiner ...*
> 
> *The Huffington Post - RationalWiki*
> 
> *Huffington Post Lying Againâ¦.. This One Was An Easy Spot ...*


Sounds a lot like Fox News.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> Sounds a lot like Fox News.


I don't watch Fox news, nor any other cable news, but, you imply that Fox news lies, do you have any documented proof of this, on a large scale?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> Not their own fault, but, rather the fault of the Federal government. It is the Federal "war on poverty" that has created much of the multi-generational poverty in the African American community.


And why are blacks so much stupider than whites that they are disproportionately represented in the FS stats? The gov't war of poverty should have applied to all Americans, and thus there would have been the same amount on FS as were in poverty. 

All right. Let's compare those SNAP rates to poverty rates.

SNAP rates:
40.2% white
25.7% black
10.3% Hispanic
2.1% Asian
1.2% Native American

Poverty rate (from here)
10% white
26% black
24% hispanic
15% Other (asian, native american, etc)

Whoops. Looks like blacks aren't slackers after all. A completely different group is.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> And why are blacks so much stupider than whites that they are disproportionately represented in the FS stats? The gov't war of poverty should have applied to all Americans, and thus there would have been the same amount on FS as were in poverty.
> 
> All right. Let's compare those SNAP rates to poverty rates.
> 
> SNAP rates:
> 40.2% white
> 25.7% black
> 10.3% Hispanic
> 2.1% Asian
> 1.2% Native American
> 
> Poverty rate (from here)
> 10% white
> 26% black
> 24% hispanic
> 15% Other (asian, native american, etc)
> 
> Whoops. Looks like blacks aren't slackers after all. A completely different group is.


Good point. Thanks for the additional information.


----------



## poppy

Heritagefarm said:


> Let's not forget that blacks are also disproportionately poor and discriminated against. But, that is most likely their own fault, of course.


Whose fault do you think it is? We've spent trillions on poverty programs over the years and it hasn't helped at all. In fact is is getting worse. Government largess is certainly part of the problem. It fosters a sense of irresponsibility and lack of self worth among the poor. However, let's look at the personal level. Who is stopping a child, black or white, from going to school today and paying attention in class? No one. There is no KKK barring the school doors. I've got 5 grandkids in school today. Their parents see to it that they go and take time to review their homework and talk to their teachers a couple times a year to make sure they are doing okay. It ain't that hard. Why can't the parents of poor black and white kids do at least that much? The path to being able to take care of yourself is pretty simple. Stay in school, don't get pregnant, stay out of trouble with the law, and show up for work. It's really that easy assuming you have no physical or mental handicaps. You'll get a job, perhaps a menial job but once you establish a good work history you can move up as older people retire.


----------



## MDKatie

poppy said:


> However, let's look at the personal level. Who is stopping a child, black or white, from going to school today and paying attention in class? No one. There is no KKK barring the school doors. I've got 5 grandkids in school today. Their parents see to it that they go and take time to review their homework and talk to their teachers a couple times a year to make sure they are doing okay. It ain't that hard. Why can't the parents of poor black and white kids do at least that much? T


There are many reasons kids miss school, many of them out of the kids' control. A kid can't help his family situation. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/02/27/22cutillo.h32.html


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> I don't watch Fox news, nor any other cable news, but, you imply that Fox news lies, do you have any documented proof of this, on a large scale?


http://www.alternet.org/media/science-fox-news-why-its-viewers-are-most-misinformed


----------



## Irish Pixie

poppy said:


> Whose fault do you think it is? We've spent trillions on poverty programs over the years and it hasn't helped at all. In fact is is getting worse. Government largess is certainly part of the problem. It fosters a sense of irresponsibility and lack of self worth among the poor. However, let's look at the personal level. Who is stopping a child, black or white, from going to school today and paying attention in class? No one. There is no KKK barring the school doors. I've got 5 grandkids in school today. Their parents see to it that they go and take time to review their homework and talk to their teachers a couple times a year to make sure they are doing okay. It ain't that hard. Why can't the parents of poor black and white kids do at least that much? The path to being able to take care of yourself is pretty simple. Stay in school, don't get pregnant, stay out of trouble with the law, and show up for work. It's really that easy assuming you have no physical or mental handicaps. You'll get a job, perhaps a menial job but once you establish a good work history you can move up as older people retire.


The bottom line is the quality of an inner city public school, right? A good basic education is needed to go anywhere in life. The biggest obstacle is hiring, and keeping, good teachers. 

"Staffing urban schools with effective teachers poses a formidable challenge for superintendents and state officials. The response to the teacher quality provisions in NCLB illustrates that it can be much easier to relabel the problem rather than address it directly. Evidence on teacher recruitment and retention suggests several important lessons."

http://futureofchildren.org/publica...x.xml?journalid=34&articleid=79&sectionid=462


----------



## Heritagefarm

poppy said:


> Whose fault do you think it is? We've spent trillions on poverty programs over the years and it hasn't helped at all. In fact is is getting worse. Government largess is certainly part of the problem. It fosters a sense of irresponsibility and lack of self worth among the poor. However, let's look at the personal level. Who is stopping a child, black or white, from going to school today and paying attention in class? No one. There is no KKK barring the school doors. I've got 5 grandkids in school today. Their parents see to it that they go and take time to review their homework and talk to their teachers a couple times a year to make sure they are doing okay. It ain't that hard. Why can't the parents of poor black and white kids do at least that much? The path to being able to take care of yourself is pretty simple. Stay in school, don't get pregnant, stay out of trouble with the law, and show up for work. It's really that easy assuming you have no physical or mental handicaps. You'll get a job, perhaps a menial job but once you establish a good work history you can move up as older people retire.


Yes, very good. But that is the solution to the problem, and we were not actually discussing the solution. I was attempting to shed light on the assertion that blacks were disproportionately on FS, which I did. I also showed that whites were far disproportionately of FS. Thus, the next question is, 
how are *40%* of FS users white
while only *10%* are impoverished?


----------



## MO_cows

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, very good. But that is the solution to the problem, and we were not actually discussing the solution. I was attempting to shed light on the assertion that blacks were disproportionately on FS, which I did. I also showed that whites were far disproportionately of FS. Thus, the next question is,
> how are *40%* of FS users white
> while only *10%* are impoverished?


That's a bogus comparison to begin with. You are comparing percentages, not actual numbers. 

Because of the white majority in overall numbers of the population, 10% of whites is a lot more people than 10% of blacks, hispanics, etc. So that 10% of impoverished whites is a big enough number to become 40% of food stamp recipients.


----------



## TripleD

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, very good. But that is the solution to the problem, and we were not actually discussing the solution. I was attempting to shed light on the assertion that blacks were disproportionately on FS, which I did. I also showed that whites were far disproportionately of FS. Thus, the next question is,
> how are *40%* of FS users white
> while only *10%* are impoverished?


One might say they qualified for the benefits they are receiving or there is a lot of fraud in the system ??


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> And why are blacks so much stupider than whites that they are disproportionately represented in the FS stats? The gov't war of poverty should have applied to all Americans, and thus there would have been the same amount on FS as were in poverty.
> 
> All right. Let's compare those SNAP rates to poverty rates.
> 
> SNAP rates:
> 40.2% white
> 25.7% black
> 10.3% Hispanic
> 2.1% Asian
> 1.2% Native American
> 
> Poverty rate (from here)
> 10% white
> 26% black
> 24% hispanic
> 15% Other (asian, native american, etc)
> 
> Whoops. Looks like blacks aren't slackers after all. A completely different group is.


I said nothing about blacks being stupid, nor slackers. I said that the Federal government is at fault. The so-called "war on poverty" was a thinly veiled attempt to get blacks to vote for the Democrat Party. At least that is what LBJ was reported to have said. The results cannot be denied across all racial lines, but, hit particularly hard by the racist Federal programs is the black community.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.alternet.org/media/science-fox-news-why-its-viewers-are-most-misinformed


Sorry, I said "documented proof", not "leftist propaganda".


----------



## Farmerga

The War on Poverty did noting except stop the decline of poverty and kill minority families. The "war on poverty" began in 1963.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> I said nothing about blacks being stupid, nor slackers. I said that the Federal government is at fault. The so-called "war on poverty" was a thinly veiled attempt to get blacks to vote for the Democrat Party. At least that is what LBJ was reported to have said. The results cannot be denied across all racial lines, but, hit particularly hard by the racist Federal programs is the black community.


Actually MOcows may be right. But I don't have time to crunch that many numbers. 



Farmerga said:


> Sorry, I said "documented proof", not "leftist propaganda".


http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/#74cd0b186189


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> Actually MOcows may be right. But I don't have time to crunch that many numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/#74cd0b186189


 
Not really "proof" but, a small poll in New Jersey, but, Ok whatever.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

scooter said:


> Huffington Post has been caught lying before.
> *Huffington Post Caught BLATANTLY Lying About ...*
> 
> *Huffington Post caught lying to attack gun rights | Examiner ...*
> 
> *The Huffington Post - RationalWiki*
> 
> *Huffington Post Lying Againâ¦.. This One Was An Easy Spot ...*


Not long ago you posted a link that you claimed "proved the DEMS passed a bill to stop election year USSC appointments", and not one part of that was true. 
I wouldn't complain about someone else's source judging by the one you used


----------



## Sourdough

Too whom are food stamps a gift..............???

The food producing industry, or the retail food marketing industry, or food consumer......???


----------



## Irish Pixie

Can anyone explain how government can take away food stamps without causing hungry kids? Please don't take the tack of "tell 'em to get a job", it's just not that easy, and I don't think that anyone here is stupid enough to believe it is. Unemployment is already on the high side, people that are near or below the poverty level are (usually) not well educated, and in some cases not employable at all. 

The US is not a third world country so how do we move family's off of food stamps without causing hungry kids?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Can anyone explain how government can take away food stamps without causing hungry kids? Please don't take the tack of "tell 'em to get a job", it's just not that easy, and I don't think that anyone here is stupid enough to believe it is. Unemployment is already on the high side, people that are near or below the poverty level are (usually) not well educated, and in some cases not employable at all.
> 
> The US is not a third world country so how do we move family's off of food stamps without causing hungry kids?


 I don't care about the food stamps, I don't even care if the government wants to create these programs. What I don't like is that the Federal government is the one either implementing, or, mandating these programs. That goes beyond their mandate. The same goes for healthcare insurance and retirement funding. If the individual states want to create these programs, I say have at it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I don't care about the food stamps, I don't even care if the government wants to create these programs. What I don't like is that the Federal government is the one either implementing, or, mandating these programs. That goes beyond their mandate. The same goes for healthcare insurance and retirement funding. If the individual states want to create these programs, I say have at it.


So how do we feed hungry kids without the programs? We're talking about human beings, not statistics, real live people. 

Wouldn't the liability on poor states be overwhelming? How would that be overcome?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sourdough said:


> Too whom are food stamps a gift..............???
> 
> The food producing industry, or the retail food marketing industry, or food consumer......???


Would you rather they spent the money on another Obama vacation?


----------



## poppy

Irish Pixie said:


> The bottom line is the quality of an inner city public school, right? A good basic education is needed to go anywhere in life. The biggest obstacle is hiring, and keeping, good teachers.
> 
> "Staffing urban schools with effective teachers poses a formidable challenge for superintendents and state officials. The response to the teacher quality provisions in NCLB illustrates that it can be much easier to relabel the problem rather than address it directly. Evidence on teacher recruitment and retention suggests several important lessons."
> 
> http://futureofchildren.org/publica...x.xml?journalid=34&articleid=79&sectionid=462


That argument is merely shifting the blame. All teachers in inner city schools have to meet the same requirements as any other public school. They can easily teach math, science, and English. Again, it ain't that hard. A lot of people do it themselves at home with absolutely no training. I'm not saying good teachers don't transfer out of those schools because many do. That is do to the culture of the students in those schools. No one wants to teach kids who don't show up half the time or are often hateful or violent to the teachers. That's not a school problem. It is a culture problem and a government interference problem. Those school are well funded compared to public schools decades ago. In short, any kid can go to those schools and get a decent education if they so desire.


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> Can anyone explain how government can take away food stamps without causing hungry kids? Please don't take the tack of "tell 'em to get a job", it's just not that easy, and I don't think that anyone here is stupid enough to believe it is. Unemployment is already on the high side, people that are near or below the poverty level are (usually) not well educated, and in some cases not employable at all.
> 
> The US is not a third world country so how do we move family's off of food stamps without causing hungry kids?


No one wants kids to go hungry, but able bodied adults with no dependents should be required to do community service, go to school or ojt.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> So how do we feed hungry kids without the programs? We're talking about human beings, not statistics, real live people.
> 
> Wouldn't the liability on poor states be overwhelming? How would that be overcome?


 I just stated that the programs are irrelevant, only who implements them is a concern. 

The liability would be overcome with prioritized spending and acts of charity. Nobody would starve without Big Daddy Fed giving out manna from D.C..


----------



## Irish Pixie

poppy said:


> That argument is merely shifting the blame. All teachers in inner city schools have to meet the same requirements as any other public school. They can easily teach math, science, and English. Again, it ain't that hard. A lot of people do it themselves at home with absolutely no training. I'm not saying good teachers don't transfer out of those schools because many do. That is do to the culture of the students in those schools. No one wants to teach kids who don't show up half the time or are often hateful or violent to the teachers. That's not a school problem. It is a culture problem and a government interference problem. Those school are well funded compared to public schools decades ago. In short, any kid can go to those schools and get a decent education if they so desire.


Is the "cultural problem" just that the students are minorities? Which culture would that be?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Is the "cultural problem" just that the students are minorities? Which culture would that be?


 The culture of government stepping in and replacing Fathers. It is not just a problem of the AA community, but, it has hit them the hardest. The AA community had some of the strongest families in America, until 1963 when it all began to change. We are now in the 3rd or 4th generation of the failed "War on Poverty" and the results are getting worse and worse.


----------



## flewism

Irish Pixie said:


> Can anyone explain how government can take away food stamps without causing hungry kids? Please don't take the tack of "tell 'em to get a job", it's just not that easy, and I don't think that anyone here is stupid enough to believe it is. Unemployment is already on the high side, people that are near or below the poverty level are (usually) not well educated, and in some cases not employable at all.
> 
> The US is not a third world country so how do we move family's off of food stamps without causing hungry kids?


 
You don't, they are not well educated thereby unemployable except as unskilled labor which is leaving this country. Retraining them is expensive and shows little success. So we will just feed them for the rest of their lives. The problem is that the percentage of the population falling within that category is growing and the portion that is supplying the means to support them is shrinking. 

When did this thread change from "who's on Food stamps" to "how do we remove people from food stamp" ??


----------



## poppy

Irish Pixie said:


> So how do we feed hungry kids without the programs? We're talking about human beings, not statistics, real live people.
> 
> Wouldn't the liability on poor states be overwhelming? How would that be overcome?


How did people feed their kids before all these wonderful government programs? I've never heard of kids falling over dead from starvation back in those days. Their parents were responsible enough to feed them. And guess what, we had a lot less pudgy kids running around. Their moms cooked real food and they often took leftovers for lunch at school. Nothing wrong with a cold chicken leg and left over baked potato for a kid's lunch. That's plenty of food for a child or a lot of overweight adults. Today's parents rely on the school to warm up some processed hot dogs or other garbage for their kids. My grandkids refuse to eat that school garbage and take their lunch except on taco days.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I just stated that the programs are irrelevant, only who implements them is a concern.
> 
> The liability would be overcome with prioritized spending and acts of charity. Nobody would starve without Big Daddy Fed giving out manna from D.C..


If people rant about the cost of programs shared among many (as in federal taxes) do you honestly think they are going to willingly donate to food programs? C'mon. You know as well I as I do that there are very few that would voluntarily give their "hard earned" money. 

There are kids that would go hungry. There are kids NOW that go hungry, and there are more that are food insecure, they simply do not know where when their next meal will be. That's with food programs.


----------



## Irish Pixie

poppy said:


> How did people feed their kids before all these wonderful government programs? I've never heard of kids falling over dead from starvation back in those days. Their parents were responsible enough to feed them. And guess what, we had a lot less pudgy kids running around. Their moms cooked real food and they often took leftovers for lunch at school. Nothing wrong with a cold chicken leg and left over baked potato for a kid's lunch. That's plenty of food for a child or a lot of overweight adults. Today's parents rely on the school to warm up some processed hot dogs or other garbage for their kids. My grandkids refuse to eat that school garbage and take their lunch except on taco days.


My take? People were more generous, and there was a lot less "I got mine, to bad for you". 

Where does the "cooked real food" come from if there isn't any in the house?


----------



## poppy

Irish Pixie said:


> Is the "cultural problem" just that the students are minorities? Which culture would that be?


You know full well the culture I'm talking about. No responsibility at all. You see it in inner city neighborhoods and white trash trailer parks across the country. The kids run wild with little or no supervision or guidance from the parents.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> The culture of government stepping in and replacing Fathers. It is not just a problem of the AA community, but, it has hit them the hardest. The AA community had some of the strongest families in America, until 1963 when it all began to change. We are now in the 3rd or 4th generation of the failed "War on Poverty" and the results are getting worse and worse.


I agree with you to an extent. What can be done about it?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree with you to an extent. What can be done about it?


 About you agreeing with me? I don't know, but, I am skeered!!! Just kidding!! :lookout:

Seriously, it is a mess. I believe it would help to get programs, that help the poor, on a more local level. The money should come from the community around the impoverished area and be ran by people from that area. They need to KNOW the people that they are helping. The system we have now, simply throws money at the problem. That may not be the best answer and, certainly, shouldn't be the only one.


----------



## poppy

Irish Pixie said:


> My take? People were more generous, and there was a lot less "I got mine, to bad for you".
> 
> Where does the "cooked real food" come from if there isn't any in the house?


Who should be responsible to see there is food in the house? That's a responsibility of parents. You assume that responsibility when you have kids. It should not be taxpayer's responsibility to see there is food in your house. In fact, it often doesn't work. Most of those lining up at food banks are already getting food stamps. What are they buying with them that causes they to need to hit the food bank every week? On top of that, their kids are getting free lunches at school, and sometimes even free breakfast. Where are the food stamps going?


----------



## Irish Pixie

poppy said:


> Who should be responsible to see there is food in the house? That's a responsibility of parents. You assume that responsibility when you have kids. It should not be taxpayer's responsibility to see there is food in your house. In fact, it often doesn't work. Most of those lining up at food banks are already getting food stamps. What are they buying with them that causes they to need to hit the food bank every week? On top of that, their kids are getting free lunches at school, and sometimes even free breakfast. Where are the food stamps going?


I see. You are of the "tell them to get a job" mindset. I don't think it's understood that "them" are human beings. 

There is no point in discussing this with you further.


----------



## MDKatie

poppy said:


> Nothing wrong with a cold chicken leg and left over baked potato for a kid's lunch.


Many, many kids rely on schools for food because there is NO food at home. Even my kids' school sends home food on the weekends for students in summer school, and I wouldn't even think there are areas of our county that are that badly off. Apparently there are. I think that's the problem. Many people have no concept of poverty or think "it's not around here". Hell, someone close to me knew what it was like to have little food growing up...he would have LOVED a chicken leg in his lunch but when you have to eat lima bean soup for 2 weeks at a time, there are no "leftovers" like that to take for lunch.


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> Can anyone explain how government can take away food stamps without causing hungry kids? Please don't take the tack of "tell 'em to get a job", it's just not that easy, and I don't think that anyone here is stupid enough to believe it is. Unemployment is already on the high side, people that are near or below the poverty level are (usually) not well educated, and in some cases not employable at all.
> 
> The US is not a third world country so how do we move family's off of food stamps without causing hungry kids?


The name of the program is Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. With the key word being, "Supplemental". It was never intended to be the entire food budget! Just to give people more money for food so they could eat a more varied and healthy diet. So, children in a family that sees a reduction in or loss of SNAP benefits might not eat as healthy or varied a diet as they could have with the benefits, but there won't be starving children in the streets. 

Also don't forget there is the overlapping program WIC which covers basic nutrition items. Kids might get tired of eating cereal and other basic items covered by WIC but they aren't going to starve. Another generation of Americans with stories to tell of their hard times, like the Depression survivors tell of living on beans,cornbread and taters? 

Just because we aren't a third world country doesn't mean we have to provide every man woman and child with a middle class lifestyle at the taxpayers expense.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> The bottom line is the quality of an inner city public school, right?


No, the bottom line is parents caring about their kids education.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> The name of the program is Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. With the key word being, "Supplemental". It was never intended to be the entire food budget! Just to give people more money for food so they could eat a more varied and healthy diet. So, children in a family that sees a reduction in or loss of SNAP benefits might not eat as healthy or varied a diet as they could have with the benefits, but there won't be starving children in the streets.
> 
> Also don't forget there is the overlapping program WIC which covers basic nutrition items. Kids might get tired of eating cereal and other basic items covered by WIC but they aren't going to starve. Another generation of Americans with stories to tell of their hard times, like the Depression survivors tell of living on beans,cornbread and taters?
> 
> Just because we aren't a third world country doesn't mean we have to provide every man woman and child with a middle class lifestyle at the taxpayers expense.


Why does it matter what it's called when people, especially kids, are hungry? 

Cereal isn't the stuff that grows strong bodies and minds. I think suggesting that kids "survive" on it is shameful. 

No, we don't owe everyone a middle class lifestyle, what is that exactly anyway? But everyone needs good food to survive.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> No, the bottom line is parents caring about their kids education.


If you say so... but what if they don't have supportive parents? Too bad, so sad? Which is why an education is vitally important and good teachers a must.


----------



## Sourdough

Why was the program originally created..........??? It was created to help one group. Name that group.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MDKatie said:


> Many, many kids rely on schools for food because there is NO food at home. Even my kids' school sends home food on the weekends for students in summer school, and I wouldn't even think there are areas of our county that are that badly off. Apparently there are. I think that's the problem. Many people have no concept of poverty or think "it's not around here". Hell, someone close to me knew what it was like to have little food growing up...he would have LOVED a chicken leg in his lunch but when you have to eat lima bean soup for 2 weeks at a time, there are no "leftovers" like that to take for lunch.


My mother (her mother had it even worse) was food insecure too. It's scary and sad even to think about.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Sourdough said:


> Why was the program originally created..........??? It was created to help one group. Name that group.


Does it matter now? It's morphed into a program that many many people rely on to feed their families.


----------



## hoddedloki

If you want to keep papering over the problem, feel free to keep the system the way it is now. If you want to actually fix the problem, it will require making hard choices, choices that mean the decision maker will not get re-elected. Sen. Moynihan wrote about the problem inherent in the system as it is, and the eventual problems that would result from keeping the same system.

Fixing the system would be neither comfortable nor cheap
1. Dramatically change the welfare system. If you are able bodied, then you can work to support yourself. If you are able bodied but need training, than you should be given a time limited stipend while you train, which will be dependent on satisfactory progress. Once you are trained, go get a job. No more being paid more than minimum wage just to sit in your house and watch TV.
2. Disability- if you are disabled (too broken-bodied to work), than prove it, with annual exams, and multiple doctors so attesting. Disabled can get disability money to support themselves.
3. Children- if you can support them, you can keep them. If you cannot support them, then either the state or a private charity takes custody. If you keep having children that you cannot support, than mandatory Norplant is an option. If you can support them, but fail to meet basic child care standards (x calories per day available, x sets of clothing per year, etc.), than you lose custody.
4. You only get tax benefits for children if you actually pay taxes and support them. No tax checks simply for having children. You want a tax refund, it may not be more than you paid in taxes that year.
5. Voting privileges are restricted to those who can show that they paid taxes for the previous 2 years. (Exemptions for 18 Y.O.s and for retirees) History has consistently shown that citizens will vote themselves the treasury as soon as they figure out that they can give themselves free stuff. See Mitt Romney's 47% comments.

Using this as a template for a solution, many of the problems of generational poverty can be addressed, but will require much gnashing of teeth to implement, and will require politicians more interested in fixing the problem than in their jobs (citizen legilators.)

A longer term (less painful, but less sure of success) solution is to address the failures of the public educational system. I have seen college freshmen who cannot read, and others who do not grasp basic mathematics. They graduated from high school with a 3.0 or better. This is a systemic problem that should be addressed, but currently cannot, because the teachers and administrators are major donors to progressive politicians.

None of the problems are insurmountable, but we are not currently showing the grit to actually fix the problem instead of dancing around them.

Loki


----------



## Fishindude

My midwestern community isn't too bad off. Jobs are available if you want them, however 60% of the kids in our school system are on the free lunch / breakfast program. In my opinion the reason they are on this is because .... if the government is going to feed their kids for free, the parents are going to take advantage of it. These same kids aren't going to starve if they shut these programs off, their parents would pay for school lunches or send them with a brown bag. Yeah, they might not eat as well, but they will get fed.

These same families manage to equip. themselves all with cell phones, have cable TV, internet, parents smoke and have beer, drive vehicles, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they would give up the TV before the kids went hungry. If they didn't take care of the kids, lock up the parents and put the kids in foster homes. When others saw this happening, they might straighten up their acts.


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> Why does it matter what it's called when people, especially kids, are hungry?
> 
> Cereal isn't the stuff that grows strong bodies and minds. I think suggesting that kids "survive" on it is shameful.
> 
> No, we don't owe everyone a middle class lifestyle, what is that exactly anyway? But everyone needs good food to survive.


The name matters because it defines the intention of the program. If the program only went to kids that were truly "hungry", it would be a fraction of its current size. 

Cereal was just one example. _"*WIC* foods include infant cereal, iron-fortified adult cereal, vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice, eggs, milk, cheese, peanut butter, dried and canned beans/peas, and canned fish." _Now why wouldn't those food products let a kid grow up strong and healthy? Previous generations of Americans did on a lot less.

It is easy to get hysterical about "hungry kids" but the cold hard truth is, the programs are bloated and also widely abused and could be trimmed a great deal without any harm to any child.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> The name matters because it defines the intention of the program. If the program only went to kids that were truly "hungry", it would be a fraction of its current size.
> 
> Cereal was just one example. _"*WIC* foods include infant cereal, iron-fortified adult cereal, vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice, eggs, milk, cheese, peanut butter, dried and canned beans/peas, and canned fish." _Now why wouldn't those food products let a kid grow up strong and healthy? Previous generations of Americans did on a lot less.
> 
> It is easy to get hysterical about "hungry kids" but the cold hard truth is, the programs are bloated and also widely abused and could be trimmed a great deal without any harm to any child.


It's also very easy to become cold and callus, as well.


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> My mother (her mother had it even worse) was food insecure too. It's scary and sad even to think about.


The majority of America was "food insecure" during the Depression. The double whammy of drought and depression. That's probably your grandmother's time frame?


----------



## hoddedloki

Irish Pixie said:


> It's also very easy to become cold and callus, as well.


It is also very easy to let your emotions run wild, and to not think through your actions. How about a bit of that compassionate conservatism. Do what is best long term, not what is most comfortable short term.

Loki


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Sourdough View Post
> Why was the program originally created..........??? It was created to help one group.
> *Name that group*.


People


----------



## coolrunnin

Irish Pixie said:


> My mother (her mother had it even worse) was food insecure too. It's scary and sad even to think about.


What did they do to reduce food insecurity? Your gm had it worse than your dm and I assume you have less insecurity than either of them.


----------



## Irish Pixie

hoddedloki said:


> If you want to keep papering over the problem, feel free to keep the system the way it is now. If you want to actually fix the problem, it will require making hard choices, choices that mean the decision maker will not get re-elected. Sen. Moynihan wrote about the problem inherent in the system as it is, and the eventual problems that would result from keeping the same system.
> 
> Fixing the system would be neither comfortable nor cheap
> 1. Dramatically change the welfare system. If you are able bodied, then you can work to support yourself. If you are able bodied but need training, than you should be given a time limited stipend while you train, which will be dependent on satisfactory progress. Once you are trained, go get a job. No more being paid more than minimum wage just to sit in your house and watch TV.
> 2. Disability- if you are disabled (too broken-bodied to work), than prove it, with annual exams, and multiple doctors so attesting. Disabled can get disability money to support themselves.
> 3. Children- if you can support them, you can keep them. If you cannot support them, then either the state or a private charity takes custody. If you keep having children that you cannot support, than mandatory Norplant is an option. If you can support them, but fail to meet basic child care standards (x calories per day available, x sets of clothing per year, etc.), than you lose custody.
> 4. You only get tax benefits for children if you actually pay taxes and support them. No tax checks simply for having children. You want a tax refund, it may not be more than you paid in taxes that year.
> 5. Voting privileges are restricted to those who can show that they paid taxes for the previous 2 years. (Exemptions for 18 Y.O.s and for retirees) History has consistently shown that citizens will vote themselves the treasury as soon as they figure out that they can give themselves free stuff. See Mitt Romney's 47% comments.
> 
> Using this as a template for a solution, many of the problems of generational poverty can be addressed, but will require much gnashing of teeth to implement, and will require politicians more interested in fixing the problem than in their jobs (citizen legilators.)
> 
> A longer term (less painful, but less sure of success) solution is to address the failures of the public educational system. I have seen college freshmen who cannot read, and others who do not grasp basic mathematics. They graduated from high school with a 3.0 or better. This is a systemic problem that should be addressed, but currently cannot, because the teachers and administrators are major donors to progressive politicians.
> 
> None of the problems are insurmountable, but we are not currently showing the grit to actually fix the problem instead of dancing around them.
> 
> Loki


Thank you. You addressed problems and came up with some excellent ideas.

I absolutely agree on public education. 

I disagree with voting restrictions, at least to the degree you've laid out. American citizens are American citizens no matter their income level. 

I agree on Earned Income Credit too. No more money than what you'd receive as a refund of overpaid taxes.

Again, no American citizen should ever have their children taken away unless there is abuse. Beyond that- what would happen to them? Drop them into an already overburdened foster care program? 

The disability thing is too complex to implement, but I worked in disability insurance (employer claims end) for years. It's just too subjective, what would cripple one person is tolerable to another. 

Welfare. I like what you're saying but a stipend and paying for college for every able bodied person on welfare currently is going to increase the cost of the program. It would work for some people, and give them incentive to do well. But I can't imagine the dramatically increased cost going over well for a lot of people, can you? And there will still be people that/won't be able to continuously work, and being the country that we are we can't let them go homeless and hungry. 

I always liked Moynihan, and love this quote, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> It's also very easy to become cold and callus, as well.


It's very easy to let emotions cloud your thinking and overcome logic, too. 

In our area, it is more old people or disabled people on limited incomes who utilize the nearest food bank, than families with children. How do I know that? Because old "Cold and Callous" here is a donor. And some of the Cold and Callous Family are volunteers.


----------



## Irish Pixie

coolrunnin said:


> What did they do to reduce food insecurity? Your gm had it worse than your dm and I assume you have less insecurity than either of them.


I don't know much about my grandmother's early life (she was born in 1912) no one talked much about it. I know that her father was a severe alcoholic. My grandfather left my grandmother with three kids under 12 in 1940. Again, not much said about it other than it was "very hard". No child support in those days, and the Catholic Church wouldn't help my gma because she was a divorced, even tho her husband left her for another woman. 

I believe what they did was marry decently (after gma's first) I think both of them paid for that "security" tho. It's what women had to do back then.


----------



## Irish Pixie

hoddedloki said:


> It is also very easy to let your emotions run wild, and to not think through your actions. How about a bit of that compassionate conservatism. Do what is best long term, not what is most comfortable short term.
> 
> Loki


I donate monthly to my local food bank, have for years. I also donate to the local Rescue Mission, due in large part to the Mission my local city was the first in the country to have no homeless veterans.

I put my money where my mouth is.


----------



## hoddedloki

Irish,

Voting restrictions in this case are meant to keep those who do not pay any taxes from voting in laws designed to take money from taxpayers and give to the free-loaders. Other aspect of this idea is that I would require that taxes be voluntary. You don't want to pay them, fine, but you will not get a vote that year. All you have to do to get your vote back is start paying your taxes again.

For the children, is it better to leave the children in the often dysfunctional home that cannot take care of them, or to try to put them in a better environment that will allow them to become functional citizens? for funding, put the money that the state would have given in welfare, SNAP, and other payments towards paying for caring for the children. 

Welfare. The funding initially would increase, but only in terms of the administrative costs required for checking fro successful progress in job training. The cost over time would dramatically decrease, as the number of long-term recipients are either trained and removed from the rolls, or simply removed for non-compliance.

As to letting those that fall off the rolls go hungry, I think that you are right that we as a people should not let them starve to death, but I do not think that the government should bear the cost of caring for them. There is not one iota of authority given to the government to spend money for charity. Let communities support those they can, and encourage them to become functional citizens again.

Loki


----------



## Irish Pixie

hoddedloki said:


> Irish,
> 
> Voting restrictions in this case are meant to keep those who do not pay any taxes from voting in laws designed to take money from taxpayers and give to the free-loaders. Other aspect of this idea is that I would require that taxes be voluntary. You don't want to pay them, fine, but you will not get a vote that year. All you have to do to get your vote back is start paying your taxes again.
> 
> For the children, is it better to leave the children in the often dysfunctional home that cannot take care of them, or to try to put them in a better environment that will allow them to become functional citizens? for funding, put the money that the state would have given in welfare, SNAP, and other payments towards paying for caring for the children.
> 
> Welfare. The funding initially would increase, but only in terms of the administrative costs required for checking fro successful progress in job training. The cost over time would dramatically decrease, as the number of long-term recipients are either trained and removed from the rolls, or simply removed for non-compliance.
> 
> As to letting those that fall off the rolls go hungry, I think that you are right that we as a people should not let them starve to death, but I do not think that the government should bear the cost of caring for them. There is not one iota of authority given to the government to spend money for charity. Let communities support those they can, and encourage them to become functional citizens again.
> 
> Loki


We could go back and forth like this all day, it doesn't do any real good tho. 

I agree the system needs an overhaul but not to the detriment of kids. And there is the impasse.


----------



## coolrunnin

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know much about my grandmother's early life (she was born in 1912) no one talked much about it. I know that her father was a severe alcoholic. My grandfather left my grandmother with three kids under 12 in 1940. Again, not much said about it other than it was "very hard". No child support in those days, and the Catholic Church wouldn't help my gma because she was a divorced, even tho her husband left her for another woman.
> 
> I believe what they did was marry decently (after gma's first) I think both of them paid for that "security" tho. It's what women had to do back then.


Everyone pays for their security that's what you do. Your story isn't much different than dad's except his father was somewhat less than motivated when it came to supporting his family.
Mom grew up in Germany (born in 1940) there just flat wasn't any food. Grandpa was very entrepreneurial read operated in the black market to feed his family.

So how does guaranteeing kids get fed by government leave incentive to get off the system. At some point we have to train people to do for themselves, otherwise there's just not going to be any programs available because to many people are taking not enough giving.


----------



## Irish Pixie

coolrunnin said:


> Everyone pays for their security that's what you do. Your story isn't much different than dad's except his father was somewhat less than motivated when it came to supporting his family.
> Mom grew up in Germany (born in 1940) there just flat wasn't any food. Grandpa was very entrepreneurial read operated in the black market to feed his family.
> 
> So how does guaranteeing kids get fed by government leave incentive to get off the system. At some point we have to train people to do for themselves, otherwise there's just not going to be any programs available because to many people are taking not enough giving.


Yes, everyone does pay for their security. Often times a woman had to pretty much prostitute herself in order to feed her kids. Prior to the advent of forcing men to pay child support (and food programs) women had to do whatever they could.

It doesn't. Kids are innocent in this mess and shouldn't be punished by the irresponsibility of their parents.


----------



## doozie

It seems like so many think it's so easy to just go out and get a job, just imagine you were to loose yours, today.
Do you really think that just because you see a help wanted sign in some store that they would hire you? Or you should have your kids taken away because today you face some hardship? 
Imagine you never had a job to begin with, like a mother with children who is widowed, or walked out on, someone is going to take a chance on them?

My eyes were opened when there was a job opening where I work, and even though we had many people applying daily, none were deemed good enough, sometimes based on their former job. Some were deemed overqualified, or it was assumed they would want too much in pay, so no interview for them either. Simply put, there are plenty of people looking, but this is not job seekers market. Less jobs, more competition.

So, the people getting food stamps are still the ones that qualify for them. I don't know why this program seems to upset so many. 
Feeding people doesn't bother me at all, I couldn't line a group up, and decide who is more deserving of a meal, and turn a hungry person away, based on what I think they are capable of. They are hungry today, and may be trying very hard to better themselves, you just don't see it.


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know much about my grandmother's early life (she was born in 1912) no one talked much about it. I know that her father was a severe alcoholic. My grandfather left my grandmother with three kids under 12 in 1940. Again, not much said about it other than it was "very hard". No child support in those days, and the Catholic Church wouldn't help my gma because she was a divorced, even tho her husband left her for another woman.
> 
> I believe what they did was marry decently (after gma's first) I think both of them paid for that "security" tho. It's what women had to do back then.


My father was born in 1907 and had a third grade education. His father died in *1928* leaving 4 minor children and my dad took any job he could get to take care of his mom and those younger siblings. He was a part time laborer in a pipe foundry and had to room during the work week with distant relatives close to his job. Two of his older sisters husbands left them and he took them and their kids in also.

Those were tough times. That was back when family took care of family. I know when that changed. It was when the government took folks like my dad's place!


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> No, we don't owe everyone a middle class lifestyle, what is that exactly anyway? But everyone needs good food to survive.


Perhaps regulations need to be changed that currently allow FS recipients to buy sodas, chips, candies......all manner of non-nutritious food. Would probably end up costing taxpayers much less, too.


----------



## wr

Irish Pixie said:


> Welfare. I like what you're saying but a stipend and paying for college for every able bodied person on welfare currently is going to increase the cost of the program. It would work for some people, and give them incentive to do well. But I can't imagine the dramatically increased cost going over well for a lot of people, can you? And there will still be people that/won't be able to continuously work, and being the country that we are we can't let them go homeless and hungry.


Not everyone should go to college and a lot of trades by way of apprenticeship programs pay quite well.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Perhaps regulations need to be changed that currently allow FS recipients to buy sodas, chips, candies......all manner of non-nutritious food. Would probably end up costing taxpayers much less, too.


Nutritious food costs more.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI

Irish Pixie said:


> It's also very easy to become cold and callus, as well.


Cold and callous (a callus is on your feet, callous is an emotion) are "feelings" and feelings have no place in the formation of public policy. Those who cave, in public policy questions, to "feelings" are weak and unworthy of respect or being listened to. Feelings lead to policies that are not sustainable over time without huge risk of bankrupting the society.


----------



## po boy

painterswife said:


> Nutritious food costs more.


NO! That's not food!


----------



## MO_cows

painterswife said:


> Nutritious food costs more.


Junk food might cost less by the package, but if you compare the price of it with "real food", it is a lot more expensive. A dollar for a couple ounces in the "individual" bag of chips makes them cost $8+ per pound. But most people don't do the math. 

You could buy a bag of raw popcorn with that dollar and have a crunchy snack every day for weeks.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Nutritious food costs more.


You're defending filling them w/ junk food?

I'll betcha that all that junk food has to do with the obesity rate among the poor today.


----------



## Irish Pixie

wr said:


> Not everyone should go to college and a lot of trades by way of apprenticeship programs pay quite well.


I meant further education- college, trade school, etc. My son in law is an journeyman electrician via BOCES vocational education.


----------



## dixiegal62

Back in our poor days our family survived well on oats for breakfast. Beans and corn bread for supper. During school kids had lunch in the summer it was whatever could be got cheap...lots of fried bologna sandwiches for lunch. It didn't kill us. They survived well without chicken nuggets and frozen junk food. Didn't take much to whip up biscuits and gravy for a change of pace. The point is we survived without fs and in fact flourished. People are too soft now.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Perhaps regulations need to be changed that currently allow FS recipients to buy sodas, chips, candies......all manner of non-nutritious food. Would probably end up costing taxpayers much less, too.


There's a bill trying for that very thing in NY right now. I'm sure they already do it in TX, don't they? Have for years? With all those new babies already born and on the way... 

Before you know it the poor will be put in designated areas. I'll bet it would save a lot of taxpayer money, so what if they're treated like animals, right?


----------



## Txsteader

Let's say a bag of Fritos costs $3.00.

For that same $3.00, I could be 3-16oz bags of frozen veggies or a 3 lb pkg of fresh chicken drumsticks.

For the price of 2 bags of Fritos, I could feed a family of 5 a generous and healthy meal.

Nutritious food doesn't cost more, it just requires a little more thought and preparation.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Nutritious food costs more.


It does, and it's harder to prepare if you have less than adequate kitchen facilities, no one taught you how to cook, and you grew up on microwave "meals". It's easy to think "they" could do better or on less until you put yourself in "their" shoes.


----------



## MO_cows

dixiegal62 said:


> Back in our poor days our family survived well on oats for breakfast. Beans and corn bread for supper. During school kids had lunch in the summer it was whatever could be got cheap...lots of fried bologna sandwiches for lunch. It didn't kill us. They survived well without chicken nuggets and frozen junk food. Didn't take much to whip up biscuits and gravy for a change of pace. The point is we survived without fs and in fact flourished. People are too soft now.


But...they might be traumatized for life by that oatmeal! When DH was a kid, his mom made a pot of oatmeal for the 5 kids for breakfast on school days. She went to work very early so by the time they were up and ready to eat it, it was so thick and gummy the spoon stood up in the middle of the pot by itself. 50 years later, he still doesn't like oatmeal. But he grew into a big strong healthy man, and the siblings all laugh about it now and remember it fondly. A little hardship builds memories and character I guess.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> *There's a bill trying for that very thing in NY right now. I'm sure they already do it in TX, don't they?* Have for years? With all those new babies already born and on the way...
> 
> Before you know it the poor will be put in designated areas. I'll bet it would save a lot of taxpayer money, so what if they're treated like animals, right?


Unless the law has recently changed, no. DD had to go on FS when she had to flee an physically-abusive husband about 5 years ago. I about had a stroke when she told me what she was allowed to buy....virtually no restrictions other than alcohol or tobacco.

Per the USDA website:


> Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items


Got that? Candy is considered a food item.


----------



## Irish Pixie

1948CaseVAI said:


> Cold and callous (a callus is on your feet, callous is an emotion) are "feelings" and feelings have no place in the formation of public policy. Those who cave, in public policy questions, to "feelings" are weak and unworthy of respect or being listened to. Feelings lead to policies that are not sustainable over time without huge risk of bankrupting the society.


People without feelings are sociopaths. I'm very glad I have them.


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> There's a bill trying for that very thing in NY right now. I'm sure they already do it in TX, don't they? Have for years? With all those new babies already born and on the way...
> 
> Before *you know it the poor will be put in designated areas*. I'll bet it would save a lot of taxpayer money, so what if they're treated like animals, right?


I knew it 40 years ago! Treated like animals? Yep! Liberals!! See poor and housing projects!


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> It does, and it's harder to prepare if you have less than adequate kitchen facilities, no one taught you how to cook, and you grew up on microwave "meals". It's easy to think "they" could do better or on less until you put yourself in "their" shoes.


You are selling people short. Just because one grew up on microwave dinners, doesn't mean they are ignorant that the skill of cooking exists. There are cooking shows on public tv, the library is full of cookbooks as well as having internet access with probably millions of videos of how to make this or that, and there is a bus that goes there. If a person has the slightest bit of interest in improving their lot in life, even if it is just to eat better, or feed their kids better, or stretch their food dollars farther, it can be done.

When the Hy Vee chef does his cooking demonstration of the fancy dish they want to sell you the ingredients for, what does he use? A hot plate.


----------



## FarmerKat

MO_cows said:


> You are selling people short. Just because one grew up on microwave dinners, doesn't mean they are ignorant that the skill of cooking exists. There are cooking shows on public tv, the library is full of cookbooks as well as having internet access with probably millions of videos of how to make this or that, and there is a bus that goes there. If a person has the slightest bit of interest in improving their lot in life, even if it is just to eat better, or feed their kids better, or stretch their food dollars farther, it can be done.
> 
> When the Hy Vee chef does his cooking demonstration of the fancy dish they want to sell you the ingredients for, what does he use? A hot plate.


That's kind of what I was thinking ... How many people on this forum have grown up on a farm or a homestead and had all of the homesteading skills & knowledge when they got their own place? I see so many coming with newbie questions and a short while later they are raising chickens, pigs, growing a garden. If one can learn this, one can learn to cook a dinner from scratch.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> You are selling people short. Just because one grew up on microwave dinners, doesn't mean they are ignorant that the skill of cooking exists. There are cooking shows on public tv, the library is full of cookbooks as well as having internet access with probably millions of videos of how to make this or that, and there is a bus that goes there. If a person has the slightest bit of interest in improving their lot in life, even if it is just to eat better, or feed their kids better, or stretch their food dollars farther, it can be done.
> 
> When the Hy Vee chef does his cooking demonstration of the fancy dish they want to sell you the ingredients for, what does he use? A hot plate.


You are deliberately making it sound too easy. Reality is somewhere in between. 

The Hy Vee chef really makes an entire meal on a hotplate?


----------



## doozie

You just can't assume what a persons living quarters are, or if there is a kitchen, fridge, etc
Electric turned off, no fridge.
Take the Homeless, how do you expect them to cook for themselves, or their children. You can't make a blanket statement without taking all situations into consideration.
I used to take what I knew growing up and apply it to others too...but the reality is I know nothing of how desperate a situation can be without seeing it firsthand.


----------



## coolrunnin

Irish Pixie said:


> You are deliberately making it sound too easy. Reality is somewhere in between.
> 
> The Hy Vee chef really makes an entire meal on a hotplate?


And Sam's club, Cosco, etc. 

Cooking is not hard.


----------



## Irish Pixie

doozie said:


> You just can't assume what a persons living quarters are, or if there is a kitchen, fridge, etc
> Homeless, how do you expect them to cook for themselves, or their children. You can't make a blanket statement without taking all situations into consideration.


Yup. I agree. Too many people apply their life experience to other people and expect the same result. It just doesn't work that way.


----------



## Txsteader

How hard is it to boil/steam some veggies and saute/bake a piece of chicken?

Seriously. Are people really _that_ stupid?


----------



## Irish Pixie

coolrunnin said:


> And Sam's club, Cosco, etc.
> 
> Cooking is not hard.


Are you referring to the samples from Sam's? I'm not familiar with Costco. The ones they warm up in an electric fry pan and serve in a little cup? Seriously? 

One hotplate to cook an entire meal? An oven isn't ever needed?


----------



## coolrunnin

They don't warm it up, sometimes they actually cook stuff so yes I am totally serious.

To add I cook total meals in the truck with an electric frying pan. It can be done.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> How hard is it to boil/steam some veggies and saute/bake a piece of chicken?
> 
> Seriously. Are people really _that_ stupid?


When your daughter was on food stamps did she have access to a full kitchen? Just a hotplate? Just a microwave? Did she have a fridge and a freezer? 

Not everyone has access to the things we take for granted. Some live in hotel rooms and tiny efficiency apartments.


----------



## coolrunnin

doozie said:


> You just can't assume what a persons living quarters are, or if there is a kitchen, fridge, etc
> Electric turned off, no fridge.
> Take the Homeless, how do you expect them to cook for themselves, or their children. You can't make a blanket statement without taking all situations into consideration.
> I used to take what I knew growing up and apply it to others too...but the reality is I know nothing of how desperate a situation can be without seeing it firsthand.


So how are they heating the junk food? You can't seriously say eating chips and pop is good for the children.


----------



## Irish Pixie

coolrunnin said:


> They don't warm it up, sometimes they actually cook stuff so yes I am totally serious.
> 
> To add I cook total meals in the truck with an electric frying pan. It can be done.


You cook for just yourself in the truck?


----------



## coolrunnin

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you referring to the samples from Sam's? I'm not familiar with Costco. The ones they warm up in an electric fry pan and serve in a little cup? Seriously?
> 
> One hotplate to cook an entire meal? An oven isn't ever needed?


Oven not needed, might be nice but no not needed.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Txsteader said:


> How hard is it to boil/steam some veggies and saute/bake a piece of chicken?
> 
> Seriously. Are people really _that_ stupid?


Must be...I had a Coleman stove for 8 months and turned out five star meals...then someone gave me a stove and ruined the Coleman experience.


----------



## coolrunnin

Irish Pixie said:


> You cook for just yourself in the truck?


Fam comes sometimes but yes mostly for myself.


----------



## Elevenpoint

coolrunnin said:


> Oven not needed, might be nice but no not needed.


Dutch oven and fire and you can bake anything.


----------



## doozie

I am certainly not in favor of chips and soda in excess for anyone, least of all a child on foodstamps. I think canned food is junk too, but not everyone has a functioning kitchen. 
I am refering to posts that have simple solutions, just get a job, buy certain things and cook for your family. If only it were that easy for everyone.


----------



## coolrunnin

elevenpoint said:


> Dutch oven and fire and you can bake anything.


Open fire might be an issue at apartment type housing, but good call.


----------



## coolrunnin

doozie said:


> I am certainly not in favor of chips and soda in excess for anyone, least of all a child on foodstamps. I think canned food is junk too, but not everyone has a functioning kitchen.
> I am referring to posts that have simple solutions, just get a job, buy certain things and cook for your family. If only it were that easy for everyone.


Heating canned food can be done in the can even, any source of heat will work.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> When your daughter was on food stamps did she have access to a full kitchen? Just a hotplate? Just a microwave? Did she have a fridge and a freezer?
> 
> Not everyone has access to the things we take for granted. Some live in hotel rooms and tiny efficiency apartments.


Where there's a will, there's a way. Here's an example:

50 Delicious Meals You Can Cook on a Hot Plate

There was a time when I only had a hot plate and an ice chest. I made do w/ what I had. I certainly didn't take those conditions as justification for not preparing a nutritious meal for my family. I would have cooked on an open campfire if I had to.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> The bottom line is the quality of an inner city public school, right? A good basic education is needed to go anywhere in life. The biggest obstacle is hiring, and keeping, good teachers.
> 
> "Staffing urban schools with effective teachers poses a formidable challenge for superintendents and state officials. The response to the teacher quality provisions in NCLB illustrates that it can be much easier to relabel the problem rather than address it directly. Evidence on teacher recruitment and retention suggests several important lessons."
> 
> http://futureofchildren.org/publica...x.xml?journalid=34&articleid=79&sectionid=462


 I know many inner city teachers who do their job well. The one problem they say over and over with black students is that the parents have no interest in being involved in their child's education. They will send their kid to school in brand new $150 sneakers but with no pencils and note books. The problem is so prevalent that the teachers I know who teach in all black schools took to simply buying school supplies for the children from their own pocket because they were tired of fighting with parents to buy the materials that their child was required to come to school with. The kids came in expensive sneakers and clothes but with no school supplies. Te families had the money but not the priority to spend it on what was really important.


----------



## Elevenpoint

I helped unload the truck at the food pantry and box the food up one day a month...I had the idea of teaching a gardening class...give away seedlings...seeds..onion bulbs..seed potatos...then the basics of chickens..give away chicks. The woman that ran the food pantry said it was an excellent idea except for one thing...nobody was interested in that but they were for free food for nothing. It took awhile...but I finally learned that you can help those that want to help themself and it can be good. But I have not seen that...I have seen those that want help so they can continue the same lifestyle that caused them to need help in the first place...and if you are personally involved in that situation and cut off the cash..goods..whatever because you are really enabling...you are the devil himself.


----------



## City Bound

Farmerga said:


> The War on Poverty did noting except stop the decline of poverty and kill minority families. The "war on poverty" began in 1963.


I am not sure what minority families you are talking about. Some of the strongest and warmest families I have ever experienced were Latino families living in poverty. I had many friends in high school from Spanish harlem and I was welcomed warmly into their homes and the life of their family. They had very little financially but they had a lot of joy, friendship, and gratitude. Some of the warmest people I have ever met and I am better off for having known them. 

I mingle with poor Asian people and they have a strong sense of family also. I have never seen families so interconnected as the Asians. They work hard and they work together. 

My black friends, there was never any parents home. We use to go nuts doing whatever we wanted when I was over their houses. It is a miracle we did not kill ourselves. We use to stop elevators mid way and jump out of them, light fires, break things, throw stuff off the roof of the building. There was no one there to stop us and I would consider that the big problem in black communities, no one is there and no one really cares. 

Black families tore themselves apart. It was not the government or whites. They did themselves by the choices they made. The welfare system has tons of exploitable holes in it......the blacks in the 60's and 70's just took advantage of the holes more then other people. Who needs a man around when you can get money for being single. Who needs birth control when you get more money, a bigger apartment, and more food stamps with each kid. Who needs to take school serious when you can just go on welfare, get a free place to live and never have to work.


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> You are deliberately making it sound too easy. Reality is somewhere in between.
> 
> The Hy Vee chef really makes an entire meal on a hotplate?


Yes he does, white jacket and all. 

But I got to thinking, the best all around "low budget" piece of kitchen equipment is probably an electric skillet. Brand new at Walmart or Dollar General for around $20, way cheap at a thrift store. With the domed lid you can "bake" in them too. We had no kitchen for weeks when we did a DIY remodel and I used the daylights out of mine. Also a crock pot would be good for a novice cook but not as versatile.


----------



## Forcast

a lot of states are cutting back and cutting off food stamps. WV is one. Going to a you can have them for so many months out of 36 months then you get cut off for so many months. and you have to work, problem is when you work with just one child you loose food stamps here in WV. Clinton had big cuts in food stamps during his time in office.


----------



## City Bound

elevenpoint said:


> I helped unload the truck at the food pantry and box the food up one day a month...I had the idea of teaching a gardening class...give away seedlings...seeds..onion bulbs..seed potatos...then the basics of chickens..give away chicks. The woman that ran the food pantry said it was an excellent idea except for one thing...nobody was interested in that but they were for free food for nothing. It took awhile...but I finally learned that you can help those that want to help themself and it can be good. But I have not seen that...I have seen those that want help so they can continue the same lifestyle that caused them to need help in the first place...and if you are personally involved in that situation and cut off the cash..goods..whatever because you are really enabling...you are the devil himself.



I had that thought one day when I was watching one of those miserable ads for poverty relief in the third world. I saw a little girl standing in front of a dirt hut in the rain. The rain washed off the roof and was wasted on the ground while the narrator tells of how this little girl has no clean water to drink. Then the narrator tells how hungry she is while all around the girl I see empty areas of dirt going to waste. I thought: Why doesn't she drink the rain water running off the house? Why doesn't the family use that empty space all around their home to plant a small garden? 
Instead though, I was encouraged to give $60 a month to help feed her and her family. 

When money got so tight and I could only afford groceries for half a month I got tired of sitting around suffering and borrowing money to get through the month. I picked up a book on gardening that I found on top of a garbage can, got some plants and seeds, and made a small container garden outside my front door from junk I found in the garbage. That summer I was swimming in food. 

So, I hear ya. I agree. I am n the same page.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Where there's a will, there's a way. Here's an example:
> 
> 50 Delicious Meals You Can Cook on a Hot Plate
> 
> There was a time when I only had a hot plate and an ice chest. I made do w/ what I had. I certainly didn't take those conditions as justification for not preparing a nutritious meal for my family. I would have cooked on an open campfire if I had to.


You didn't answer the question. Where did your daughter stay while she received food stamps? Did she have children with her? Did she have access to a full kitchen? Women in her situation are often hidden in safe houses or hotel rooms without kitchens. 

I'm glad you had the skill to cook entire meals on a hot plate and able to keep the food for them in a cooler. I've done basically the same thing while camping, but it was a week or so at a time. A campground is much different than a city, an open fire would be frowned on.

We all have different skills, I wouldn't do well in the inner city. Would I adapt? Eventually, but it wouldn't be nearly as easy as you (collective you) are indicating it would be for poor women to cook meals for her family with limited equipment and without any type of training.


----------



## City Bound

painterswife said:


> Nutritious food costs more.


 That is a myth that perpetuates irresponsibility. 

Have you ever looked at the price of a bag of potato chips? Almost five dollars and half the bag is air. Water is cheaper then soda. One fresh banana cost less then a candy bar. For the cost of one meal for one person at a fast food place you can make a fresh home cooked meal for a family of four. 
Carrots dipped in peanut butter are cheap and healthy snacks. oatmeal cost less then fancy sugary breakfast cereals. Toast and jam is cheaper then cake.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> I know many inner city teachers who do their job well. The one problem they say over and over with black students is that the parents have no interest in being involved in their child's education. They will send their kid to school in brand new $150 sneakers but with no pencils and note books. The problem is so prevalent that the teachers I know who teach in all black schools took to simply buying school supplies for the children from their own pocket because they were tired of fighting with parents to buy the materials that their child was required to come to school with. The kids came in expensive sneakers and clothes but with no school supplies. Te families had the money but not the priority to spend it on what was really important.


Do you think those expensive sneakers came from Canal Street? For those not familiar with NYC, Canal St is where you can buy any type of knockoff known to man. My youngest bought a fantastic "Kate Spade" bag (retail $250) for $10. It was a decent knock off too. The same day my oldest bought a nice pair of "Gucci" sunglasses for $15.


----------



## Elevenpoint

City Bound said:


> That is a myth that perpetuates irresponsibility.
> 
> Have you ever looked at the price of a bag of potato chips? Almost five dollars and half the bag is air. Water is cheaper then soda. One fresh banana cost less then a candy bar. For the cost of one meal for one person at a fast food place you can make a fresh home cooked meal for a family of four.
> Carrots dipped in peanut butter are cheap and healthy snacks. oatmeal cost less then fancy sugary breakfast cereals. Toast and jam is cheaper then cake.


Chips soda candy bars capn crunch and cake is a lifestyle...I like old fashioned oatmeal raw with a teaspoon of sugar and milk...taste raw and natural.


----------



## coolrunnin

Irish Pixie said:


> You didn't answer the question. Where did your daughter stay while she received food stamps? Did she have children with her? Did she have access to a full kitchen? Women in her situation are often hidden in safe houses or hotel rooms without kitchens.
> 
> I'm glad you had the skill to cook entire meals on a hot plate and able to keep the food for them in a cooler. I've done basically the same thing while camping, but it was a week or so at a time. A campground is much different than a city, an open fire would be frowned on.
> 
> We all have different skills, I wouldn't do well in the inner city. Would I adapt? Eventually, but it wouldn't be nearly as easy as you (collective you) are indicating it would be for poor women to cook meals for her family with limited equipment and without any type of training.


The safe house in this area has a full commercial kitchen, and small kitchenettes in the rooms. 

Why are you so bent on taking people's pride away from them?


----------



## City Bound

MO_cows said:


> When the Hy Vee chef does his cooking demonstration of the fancy dish they want to sell you the ingredients for, what does he use? A hot plate.












These things are great. They cook so well. They are super popular with the Asians here who rent little 5 x 9 rooms to live in.


----------



## Irish Pixie

coolrunnin said:


> The safe house in this area has a full commercial kitchen, and small kitchenettes in the rooms.
> 
> Why are you so bent on taking people's pride away from them?


Why are you (all of you) so bent on taking _your_ life experience and skill and assuming that someone else can do as well without the training you've had? I worked horses for a living, can you do that? No? Why not? I can. There's no way I could drive a big rig with the skill I have now. 

Do you understand?


----------



## no really

We have a lot of immigrants come to this country, yeah some are illegal but they get by living pretty well. Sometimes 10 or 15 to a house with very little in the way of good cooking area, but they make do. They don't in many cases get food stamps or other help but they do what they have to. 

Thing is there are all levels of need when it comes to assistance, some need a lot others need to kick their butts in gear and take care of themselves.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you think those expensive sneakers came from Canal Street? For those not familiar with NYC, Canal St is where you can buy any type of knockoff known to man. My youngest bought a fantastic "Kate Spade" bag (retail $250) for $10. It was a decent knock off too. The same day my oldest bought a nice pair of "Gucci" sunglasses for $15.


Nope, nope, nope, they wouldn't be caught dead in knockoffs. Has to be the real deal, they can tell, and they have them.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you think those expensive sneakers came from Canal Street? For those not familiar with NYC, Canal St is where you can buy any type of knockoff known to man. My youngest bought a fantastic "Kate Spade" bag (retail $250) for $10. It was a decent knock off too. The same day my oldest bought a nice pair of "Gucci" sunglasses for $15.


Why raise a kid to think Kate Spade or Gucci means anything except " look what I got"?


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you think those expensive sneakers came from Canal Street? For those not familiar with NYC, Canal St is where you can buy any type of knockoff known to man. My youngest bought a fantastic "Kate Spade" bag (retail $250) for $10. It was a decent knock off too. The same day my oldest bought a nice pair of "Gucci" sunglasses for $15.


$10 that is a steal. last time I checked, the average knock off bag started at $40 down in china town. 

I can't see knock off air jordans going for $10. Maybe $25 or $30. Even the junky no name brand sneaker at the dollar store cost $20. 

using your examples though, the said $25 dollars could buy all the supplies the kid needed for school. 

You have me curious and I will keep a closer eye on the sneakers being sold on canal street next time I am there. I will keep an eye out for knock off fancy shoes, because all I ever see their is junk.


----------



## City Bound

elevenpoint said:


> Why raise a kid to think Kate Spade or Gucci means anything except " look what I got"?


Exactly. Hey look at me, I am rich.......but I cant afford pencils and paper. 
Screwed up message.


----------



## AmericanStand

Sourdough said:


> Why was the program originally created..........??? It was created to help one group. Name that group.



Farmers


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> We have a lot of immigrants come to this country, yeah some are illegal but they get by living pretty well. Sometimes 10 or 15 to a house with very little in the way of good cooking area, but they make do. They don't in many cases get food stamps or other help but they do what they have to.
> 
> Thing is there are all levels of need when it comes to assistance, some need a lot others need to kick their butts in gear and take care of themselves.


When we had someone in to buy field stone a few years ago he had about 10 men that were illegal. I didn't know they were illegal at the time. Their "lunch" consisted of Mt. Dew, snack cakes, and Frito corn chips, I know this because all the garbage was left near where they were picking rocks, except the Mt. Dew cans because they were refundable. They were here for almost two weeks. I never saw a cooler or a sack lunch, just junk. The guy that bought the stone said they did live many to a hotel room/efficiency but bought the cheapest junk food they could because there was no way to cook anything else. He knew because he had to pick them up every morning and drop them off at night.

How those men did such hard labor on that type of food I'll never know.


----------



## coolrunnin

Irish Pixie said:


> Why are you (all of you) so bent on taking _your_ life experience and skill and assuming that someone else can do as well without the training you've had? I worked horses for a living, can you do that? No? Why not? I can. There's no way I could drive a big rig with the skill I have now.
> 
> Do you understand?


I'm have heard you can train a monkey to drive a truck considering some of the driver's I have met I almost believe it.

Horses you can't get me to touch them.... although they don't taste bad.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> $10 that is a steal. last time I checked, the average knock off bag started at $40 down in china town.
> 
> I can't see knock off air jordans going for $10. Maybe $25 or $30. Even the junky no name brand sneaker at the dollar store cost $20.
> 
> using your examples though, the said $25 dollars could buy all the supplies the kid needed for school.
> 
> You have me curious and I will keep a closer eye on the sneakers being sold on canal street next time I am there. I will keep an eye out for knock off fancy shoes, because all I ever see their is junk.


The bag was actually in Midtown on a street corner in the evening. She didn't even know who Kate Spade was (at the time) she just liked the bag. It was also at least 10 years ago.

The point is that those "expensive" sneakers might not be.


----------



## coolrunnin

coolrunnin said:


> I'm have heard you can train a monkey to drive a truck considering some of the driver's I have met I almost believe it.
> 
> Horses you can't get me to touch them.... although they don't taste bad.


Why are you so bent on making people out to be useless


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> When we had someone in to buy field stone a few years ago he had about 10 men that were illegal. I didn't know they were illegal at the time. Their "lunch" consisted of Mt. Dew, snack cakes, and Frito corn chips, I know this because all the garbage was left near where they were picking rocks, except the Mt. Dew cans because they were refundable. They were here for almost two weeks. I never saw a cooler or a sack lunch, just junk. The guy that bought the stone said they did live many to a hotel room/efficiency but bought the cheapest junk food they could because there was no way to cook anything else. He knew because he had to pick them up every morning and drop them off at night.
> 
> How those men did such hard labor on that type of food I'll never know.


Determination, want to work, some have families they need to support. They do what they have to survive and provide something for families. They understand that there are priorities in life and don't mind giving up some of things to get by.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Why are you (all of you) so bent on taking _your_ life experience and skill and assuming that someone else can do as well without the training you've had? I worked horses for a living, can you do that? No? Why not? I can. There's no way I could drive a big rig with the skill I have now.
> 
> Do you understand?


 training and caring for horses is a lot different from the skill of feeding yourself. 

I think people are trying to say that they sought to acquire skills that they needed and that they taught themselves. I was trying to do that. I was sharing that I could not afford food so I found a book on gardening in the garbage, read it, and started to teach myself to grow food. I use to waste most of my money and could not keep a budget. I had to start to teach myself to do that. No one taught me, I just pieced together random bits of information I over heard here and there and tried to cobble them all together somehow. I am still teaching myself to cook because, other then the little I learned in the boy scouts, no one taught me. 

People are just saying that you can do it if you try. You can teach yourself if you want. Most times you have to teach yourself anyway because there is no one there for you. Finding people that help is rare.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> When we had someone in to buy field stone a few years ago he had about 10 men that were illegal. I didn't know they were illegal at the time. Their "lunch" consisted of Mt. Dew, snack cakes, and Frito corn chips, I know this because all the garbage was left near where they were picking rocks, except the Mt. Dew cans because they were refundable. They were here for almost two weeks. I never saw a cooler or a sack lunch, just junk. The guy that bought the stone said they did live many to a hotel room/efficiency but bought the cheapest junk food they could because there was no way to cook anything else. He knew because he had to pick them up every morning and drop them off at night.
> 
> How those men did such hard labor on that type of food I'll never know.


It's the carbs in that food that gives them the energy. Too much for too long is very bad. Could lead to type ll diabetes. Some folks go for energy drinks too.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Thoreau wrote in Walden about 170 years ago that if you give money to a man dressed in rags he is probably going to buy more rags...he did not believe in helping the poor too much because if they adopted a simpler lifestyle they would not be poor. It was their chosen lifestyle that made them poor.


----------



## no really

JeffreyD said:


> It's the carbs in that food that gives them the energy. Too much for too long is very bad. Could lead to type ll diabetes. Some folks go for energy drinks too.



People would be surprised the way they take care of themselves. Most of those guys have lived hard and know how to do what they need to and get by. How many does any one know that can cross a desert carrying very little to find a job? Some die doing it but they do it anyway.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> training and caring for horses is a lot different from the skill of feeding yourself.
> 
> I think people are trying to say that they sought to acquire skills that they needed and that they taught themselves. I was trying to do that. I was sharing that I could not afford food so I found a book on gardening in the garbage, read it, and started to teach myself to grow food. I use to waste most of my money and could not keep a budget. I had to start to teach myself to do that. No one taught me, I just pieced together random bits of information I over heard here and there and tried to cobble them all together somehow. I am still teaching myself to cook because, other then the little I learned in the boy scouts, no one taught me.
> 
> People are just saying that you can do it if you try. You can teach yourself if you want. Most times you have to teach yourself anyway because there is no one there for you. Finding people that help is rare.


You missed the point completely. What do you do? Deliver flowers? Were you always good at it? Or did it take time to gain experience? If you're still teaching yourself to cook why is it so horrible that someone else doesn't know how because they were never taught? 

I wasn't born with the skill to properly work a horse. It took time.


----------



## oneraddad

The library has free internet and with the internet you can learn to do anything


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> You are deliberately making it sound too easy. Reality is somewhere in between.
> 
> The Hy Vee chef really makes an entire meal on a hotplate?


When you cook dinner do you use every burner and your oven every night? 
Have you ever cooked an entire meal on just one burner? 

I cook most of my food on the stove. At best I use two burners if need be. 
This summer I cooked a meal for nine people on two burners. one burner cooked pasta and the other fried zucchini balls. The food came out good. The people wolfed it down and there was enough for everyone to have seconds. 

What is the difference between an electric hot plate and an electric burner on an electric stove top? They make double hot plates. That is all you need to make many, many different types of food. 

Yes, at Costco sometimes they have chiefs come in and cook awesome meals on just a little portable burner.


----------



## Westvalleyfarm

States and local governments should handle social programs as our federal government intended. 

I think the reason we've lost our generosity is because we've tempted it out to the federal government. Which is truly sad. 

This has lead to the erosion of the family unit, which is killing communities and leading to generational cycles of poverty.


----------



## Irish Pixie

oneraddad said:


> The library has free internet and with the internet you can learn to do anything


To build a kitchen out of nothing with no money? 

I do see your point, you can be shown how to do nearly anything with youtube videos, but it takes actual hands on experience to actually do it.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> You missed the point completely. What do you do? Deliver flowers? Were you always good at it? Or did it take time to gain experience? If you're still teaching yourself to cook why is it so horrible that someone else doesn't know how because they were never taught?
> 
> I wasn't born with the skill to properly work a horse. It took time.


 Maybe I misunderstand you. I took what you have been saying to be making excuses for people as a way to enable them to not try. Sort of like, "it is not your fault let me or someone else do it for you". 
That is the way I read what you wrote. If I was wrong I apologize.

if you are saying "ok. I understand that you can not cook, but you need to jump in and start to learn. if you like I can help you get started." then I agree with you. 

I do not think it is horrible that many people, including myself, do not now how to do things. I think it is horrible if we do not try to help ourselves to learn and to be better people. I understand some people can not help themselves because of medical reasons. God bless those people and may mercy protect them. For everyone else though we need a can do attitude even if we continually get it wrong.

Seriously though, I have encountered many handicapped people in college and in life that have done amazing things despite their challenges. I knew a man who was blind who traveled everyday to manhatten to run his own sidewalk news stand. I know a brave and beautiful woman that taught herself to walk again after being partially paralyzed for four years.

If a blind man can take the subway into the city and run a newsstand then I think average people can learn to use a hot plate and make cup of noodle soup.

Necessity is the mother of invention.


----------



## City Bound

coolrunnin said:


> Heating canned food can be done in the can even, any source of heat will work.


The poor people in the uk years ago use to put a can of baked beans on the radiator to warm up, then they would make toast and make beans on toast. All they needed was a radiator and a toaster. 

I now a guy who rents a room. A bed, a chair, a tv, and a closet for clothes that is it. His fridge is his window in winter. he just opens the window and leans drinks and food against the screen. When he wants something he opens the window and grabs it. I tried it at his pace and it kept my drinks cold all day.


----------



## oneraddad

Irish Pixie said:


> To build a kitchen out of nothing with no money?
> 
> I do see your point, you can be shown how to do nearly anything with youtube videos, but it takes actual hands on experience to actually do it.


No experience needed, I never sheet rocked or wired a house but I learned how on the internet and built my house.


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> People would be surprised the way they take care of themselves. Most of those guys have lived hard and know how to do what they need to and get by. How many does any one know that can cross a desert carrying very little to find a job? Some die doing it but they do it anyway.


I'm confused. Txsteader went on about food stamps and junk food (candy is food!) yet there is another group that is celebrated for buying cheap food because they have no where to cook it.

The taxpayers are paying for the food stamps but the illegals pay no taxes and do use our medical facilities. 

Why is one fine and the other horrible? 

I'm not saying that people on food stamps should eat junk food.


----------



## Irish Pixie

oneraddad said:


> No experience needed, I never sheet rocked or wired a house but I learned how on the internet and built my house.


The you tube video showed you how to sheet rock. But you had to have the sheet rock, tape, and mud to actually learn _how_ to do it, correct?


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm confused. Txsteader went on about food stamps and junk food (candy is food!) yet there is another group that is celebrated for buying cheap food because they have no where to cook it.
> 
> The taxpayers are paying for the food stamps but the illegals pay no taxes and do use our medical facilities.
> 
> Why is one fine and the other horrible?
> 
> I'm not saying that people on food stamps should eat junk food.


Guess I just see it as survival, you do what you have to. Nothing is totally black and white, most of the time there is mostly gray.


----------



## coolrunnin

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm confused. Txsteader went on about food stamps and junk food (candy is food!) yet there is another group that is celebrated for buying cheap food because they have no where to cook it.
> 
> The taxpayers are paying for the food stamps but the illegals pay no taxes and do use our medical facilities.
> 
> Why is one fine and the other horrible?
> 
> I'm not saying that people on food stamps should eat junk food.


You were relating experiences of a work crew you had on your property, that definitely had the means if they had chosen to cook, no really was relating her experiences with crews in her area.


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> Guess I just see it as survival, you do what you have to. Nothing is totally black and white, most of the time there is mostly gray.


I agree.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> You didn't answer the question. Where did your daughter stay while she received food stamps? Did she have children with her? Did she have access to a full kitchen? Women in her situation are often hidden in safe houses or hotel rooms without kitchens.


She stayed with us & yes, her children were w/ her. I'm aware of women who don't have access to a kitchen but as has been said, and done by poor people for decades, a hot plate is all it takes. Those who are truly unable to cook a meal (due to prohibitions or building rules) are minimal. 


> I'm glad you had the skill to cook entire meals on a hot plate and able to keep the food for them in a cooler. I've done basically the same thing while camping, but it was a week or so at a time. A campground is much different than a city, an open fire would be frowned on.
> 
> We all have different skills, I wouldn't do well in the inner city. Would I adapt? Eventually, but it wouldn't be nearly as easy as you (collective you) are indicating it would be for poor women to cook meals for her family with limited equipment and without any type of training.


Women in the past have done whatever necessary to take care of their families. The fact that they're now incapable of serving a nutritious and filling meal to their families is a sad testament to how helpless people are becoming, thanks to government intervention. 

The thought of not being able to feed my family because I didn't have the sense to boil water is unfathomable to me. I taught my grand*sons* how to cook simple meals for themselves when they were 10 years old because I believe it's a fundamental skill that everyone should know.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> The you tube video showed you how to sheet rock. But you had to have the sheet rock, tape, and mud to actually learn _how_ to do it, correct?


 Have you ever seen how many off cuts of drywall are tossed in the garbage from a construction job? You could dry wall your whole house if you collected them for a year. They toss half buckets of mud also. 

Tape? Old newspaper does the job if you are broke.


----------



## oneraddad

Irish Pixie said:


> The you tube video showed you how to sheet rock. But you had to have the sheet rock, tape, and mud to actually learn _how_ to do it, correct?


I learned how to do it before I did it, doing it proved that. But, I was talking more about learning to cook and not wire my 240 volt stove.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> She stayed with us & yes, her children were w/ her. I'm aware of women who don't have access to a kitchen but as has been said, and done by poor people for decades, a hot plate is all it takes. Those who are truly unable to cook a meal (due to prohibitions or building rules) are minimal.
> Women in the past have done whatever necessary to take care of their families. The fact that they're now incapable of serving a nutritious and filling meal to their families is a sad testament to how helpless people are becoming, thanks to government intervention.
> 
> The thought of not being able to feed my family because I didn't have the sense to boil water is unfathomable to me. I taught my grand*sons* how to cook simple meals for themselves when they were 10 years old because I believe it's a fundamental skill that everyone should know.


She lived with you and was still able to get food stamps? That's odd. So she has full access to your kitchen, right? Not everyone has that.

I don't see it as helpless, I see it as not having a particular skill or experience- like you taught your grandsons to cook. It's also not helpless if you don't have a place to cook the food. 

The world has lost it's compassion and it is distressing to me.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Why are you (all of you) so bent on taking _your_ life experience and skill and assuming that someone else can do as well without the training you've had? I worked horses for a living, can you do that? No? Why not? I can. There's no way I could drive a big rig with the skill I have now.
> 
> Do you understand?


We're talking about buying nutritious food and cooking it.......as potentially simple as opening a can and heating the contents. 

Really, it doesn't require a college degree. :shrug:


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> To build a kitchen out of nothing with no money?
> 
> I do see your point, you can be shown how to do nearly anything with youtube videos, but it takes actual hands on experience to actually do it.


Yep...had to rescue too many electrical projects that somebody thought they were going to be an electrician through you tube.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> We're talking about buying nutritious food and cooking it.......as potentially simple as opening a can and heating the contents.
> 
> Really, it doesn't require a college degree. :shrug:


If you were raised on junk and semi junk food buying nutritious food that you can afford on limited funds and cooking it may be difficult, at least at first. And most canned food isn't nutritious in my opinion. If you were dropped in the middle of a large inner city would you know what to do?

ETA: This is pointless and frustrating. Have a good night.


----------



## oneraddad

Wait, you're right.... Who ever you're defending are idiots and could never figure out how to cook food.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Why are you (all of you) so bent on taking _your_ life experience and skill and assuming that someone else can do as well without the training you've had? I worked horses for a living, can you do that? No? Why not? I can. There's no way I could drive a big rig with the skill I have now.
> 
> Do you understand?



The part I understand is fear of the unknown or unattempted is what holds people back more than anything else.

I've been around both and done neither, train a horse or drive a semi, but if I had to, I'm sure I could do both. Of the two, I'd have the hardest time with the horse, lol.
I have no doubt you could drive a rig.
:goodjob:


----------



## Irish Pixie

oneraddad said:


> Wait, you're right.... Who ever you're defending are idiots and could never figure out how to cook food.


Not what I said, but you know that.


----------



## oneraddad

That's exactly what you said


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> If you were raised on junk and semi junk food buying nutritious food that you can afford on limited funds and cooking it may be difficult, at least at first. And most canned food isn't nutritious in my opinion. If you were dropped in the middle of a large inner city would you know what to do?
> 
> ETA: This is pointless and frustrating. Have a good night.


You do not need to cook a banana or an apple. They are more nutritious then a bag of skittles and cheaper. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are healthy and very affordable. One jar of PB, one of jelly, and loaf of bread can feed a person for almost a week with no cooking or kitchen required.

A box of pasta cost $1.50...or 80 cents on a good sale day. Water is free in many cities and towns. You can buy a loaf of whole wheat bread for $1.50 if you buy the generic grand.

Eating healthy is not more expensive if you do it right. Going to wholefood and buying a cart full of fancy yuppy health food will cost a fortune, but frozen veggies, fresh fruit, pasta, whole wheat bread, eggs, and other wholesome foods from a normal supermarket are healthy and in budget of most low income and poor people.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> You do not need to cook a banana or an apple. They are more nutritious then a bag of skittles and cheaper. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are healthy and very affordable. One jar of PB, one of jelly, and loaf of bread can feed a person for almost a week with no cooking or kitchen required.
> 
> A box of pasta cost $1.50...or 80 cents on a good sale day. Water is free in many cities and towns. You can buy a loaf of whole wheat bread for $1.50 if you buy the generic grand.
> 
> Eating healthy is not more expensive if you do it right. Going to wholefood and buying a cart full of fancy yuppy health food will cost a fortune, but frozen veggies, fresh fruit, pasta, whole wheat bread, eggs, and other wholesome foods from a normal supermarket are healthy and in budget of most low income people.


Are you saying a mother can provide her family with meals without cooking at all and not eating junk food? An apple or banana is a snack, not a meal. 

A diet high in carbs isn't healthy either and it's exactly why the US has an obesity problem. Good food- fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low sugar, and lean meat is expensive. 

Not to mention that there are very few supermarkets (fancy or normal) in many areas and particularly in the inner cities.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Yep...had to rescue too many electrical projects that somebody thought they were going to be an electrician through you tube.


I actually made good money retraining horses for the same reason.


----------



## Westvalleyfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying a mother can provide her family with meals without cooking at all and not eating junk food? An apple or banana is a snack, not a meal.
> 
> 
> 
> A diet high in carbs isn't healthy either and it's exactly why the US has an obesity problem. Good food- fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low sugar, and lean meat is expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that there are very few supermarkets (fancy or normal) in many areas and particularly in the inner cities.




Isn't the staple diet built around grains and carbs according from the usda.


----------



## Heritagefarm

City Bound said:


> You do not need to cook a banana or an apple. They are more nutritious then a bag of skittles and cheaper. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are healthy and very affordable. One jar of PB, one of jelly, and loaf of bread can feed a person for almost a week with no cooking or kitchen required.
> 
> A box of pasta cost $1.50...or 80 cents on a good sale day. Water is free in many cities and towns. You can buy a loaf of whole wheat bread for $1.50 if you buy the generic grand.
> 
> Eating healthy is not more expensive if you do it right. Going to wholefood and buying a cart full of fancy yuppy health food will cost a fortune, but frozen veggies, fresh fruit, pasta, whole wheat bread, eggs, and other wholesome foods from a normal supermarket are healthy and in budget of most low income and poor people.


It is currently very difficult to feed oneself in a cheap manner. Gardening is a viable option, but it's very easy to spend as much money on the tiller seeds fertilizer blah blah, as on food.
1. PB & J: Many people are allergic to PB, and it is usually processed. The jelly frequently has HFCS, especially the cheap stuff. The good stuff is about $2.50 a jar, and about half the size to boot.
2. Most cheap bread is white, processed, and your body processes it _exactly_ like a bag of skittles.
3. Your last point is valid.


----------



## mnn2501

Why is it that liberals think poor people are helpless?
That the poor cannot learn to cook and/or figure out a way to do so?
That the poor can't get a government id to be able to vote when they already need one to get a job, or cash a check or even to apply for government benefits?


----------



## arabian knight

Yogurt that right. Why is it that those progressive liberals must take control of every cotton thing in a person life????
People and NOT that dumb they can't figure out how to fend for themselves. Leet the government take over everything that is their motto. Phoey on the whole bunch of those on the left. This country if we see another 4 to 8 years of this bull feathers. This country is doomed big time. Lord Help US~! And that maybe the only one that can if we continue down this same path of destruction and thoughts of people are just too stupid to fend for themselves.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> Why is it that liberals think poor people are helpless?
> That the poor cannot learn to cook and/or figure out a way to do so?
> That the poor can't get a government id to be able to vote when they already need one to get a job, or cash a check or even to apply for government benefits?


Please reread what I've said, I don't think you understood it the first time. 

ETA: Don't bother rereading I understand now from the "likes" you gave everyone that disagreed with me.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> She lived with you and was still able to get food stamps? That's odd. So she has full access to your kitchen, right? Not everyone has that.
> 
> I don't see it as helpless, I see it as not having a particular skill or experience- like you taught your grandsons to cook. It's also not helpless if you don't have a place to cook the food.
> 
> The world has lost it's compassion and it is distressing to me.


One can cook almost anywhere. On the engine of your car, or make a pit. Lots of food doesn't even need to be cooked.


----------



## JeffreyD

I just have to say that an adult that hasn't learned to cook for themselves is pathetic. If your disabled, or ill, that's one thing, but a general healthy adult not being able to differentiate between good and bad food and not being able to cook it, poor up bringing.


----------



## wr

Between extreme poverty and welfare diets, a couple of reserves had to literally purchase kitchen appliances and set up programs teaching people how to cook, menu plan and grocery shop. 

I believe the program was initiated about 15 years ago and while it's been ongoing, it helped a lot of people. 

People can learn but sometimes, they need a hand to break the cycle.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying a mother can provide her family with meals without cooking at all and not eating junk food? An apple or banana is a snack, not a meal.
> 
> A diet high in carbs isn't healthy either and it's exactly why the US has an obesity problem. Good food- fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low sugar, and lean meat is expensive.
> 
> Not to mention that there are very few supermarkets (fancy or normal) in many areas and particularly in the inner cities.


 I am saying that there are healthy and cheaper alternative to sitting in front of the tv eating bag of potato chips and a bottle of soda for dinner.

The idea of being able to eat healthy without cooking was not intended to be proposed as a sustainable lifestyle but more so as a healthy means of eating and providing food while one learns to cook, to buy healthy affordable choices of foods, and to budget ones pantry resources and monetary budget for food. 

You have insisted that people can not afford to eat healthy and that poor people may not have access to kitchens. I was giving examples of how one could eat healthy without a kitchen and without being able to cook. Are you going to now suggest that adults need to be taught how to make a sandwich? 

What I suggest is a life vest to keep one afloat while they learn new skills and make effort to find housing. Yes, a mother could make meals for her kids for months without cooking, having a stove, or resorting to junk food.

Here is what a day could look like eating healthy as a family with no kitchen:

Morning meal: 
1. Generic grand corn flakes with ether real or powdered milk, sweetened if desired by brown sugar or honey (you can get honey on sale for a dollar or two and it could last a month or more). Twice a week add banana to the cereal for natural minerals and vitamins.

.Lunch:

1. tuna fish salad sandwich with lettuce, egg salad sandwich with lettuce, add diced pickles if you like. A glass of water to drink. 

2. wrap made with burrito shell, lettuce, small amounts of tomato, a quarter of a can of tuna for each wrap. Once can of tuna, four wraps, about and 8th of a head of lettuce and ether half or one quarter of a tomato. That would cost about $2.25 to feed a family of four for lunch. Served with good old fashioned cold water. Nothing is healthier then water to drink.

Dinner:
1. Sandwiched again with a salad.

Can you serious complain about that menu minus allergies of course? 
A family of four living in their car could eat like this for months until they figured out a way to get on their feet. 

A banana or and apple is more of a meal the a bag of chips or a box doughnuts would ever be. YEs, they can be snacks or part of a healthy meal. A banana is a healthier and more filling snack then a bag of skittles.


----------



## City Bound

mnn2501 said:


> Why is it that liberals think poor people are helpless?
> That the poor cannot learn to cook and/or figure out a way to do so?
> That the poor can't get a government id to be able to vote when they already need one to get a job, or cash a check or even to apply for government benefits?


Because some poor people are helpless. Think of the elderly, the sick, and handicapped living in poverty. Some of the children are helpless also. 

The real reason though is because they think they are super heroes who can save everyone and make a perfect world. 

Some are sadists who use altruism and idealism to flog themselves in penance.


----------



## arabian knight

The inmates are running the asylum and they have twerked their way into positions of authority. The asylum is the government and the inmates are the liberals who strive for nothing less that the destruction of Western Civilization and the Christian standards upon which it was founded.


----------



## DJ in WA

Didn't make it throught the whole thread, but here's some thoughts that may have been covered:

So I see the same short-term emotional thinking going on here that I see with tobacco users. They need it now! Who cares about the long term cancer.

Likewise, we want free food now! Forget where the money comes from or the dependence it creates, and the increased poverty long term which makes it worse. Sure, we can find hard luck stories, but multiply them by ten after government gets involved. And then we keep saying more government is the fix! As someone said government is the disease masquerading as the cure. Like a firefighter near here who was setting fires and being the hero for being first on scene to put it out. That is your savior, the government.

So we complain about lack of, or low-paying jobs, as we throw all our money at government to pay for free stuff. So how does the economy thrive when supporting an army of bureaucrats that produce nothing? And the money going to corporations for providing the "free" food.

How do we prosper by sending a dollar to WA DC and getting 30 cents back after the fraud, waste and abuse? I mean, if you think people get richer by throwing money away, PM me and I'll let you give it to me! Send me a thousand dollars and I'll give you back a hundred bucks worth of food to "keep you from starving."

So poor people pay a big price for this free stuff, but the money is taken in ways that are not visible. Like printing money to pay for it, which raises the cost of living.

The 1950's were prosperous because we slashed government spending after WW2. 

We make more poor people by them becoming dependent and working less. Prosperity should come from effort, but why work if you are being supported? As they say, you get more of whatever you subsidize. Subsidize corn farmers and you get too much corn. Subsidize poor people and you get less work and too much poverty. Support people too stupid to care for their basic needs and you get more stupid people. Pure fantasy to believe you can have it any other way. Somebody needs to work! You can either be a producer or a parasite (welfare recipient, gov't worker, or corporation sucking gov't teat).

As mentioned, the rate of single parent households has skyrocketed since the war on poverty replaced dads. And then there is more poverty and crime in those households. But as per usual, government has to perpetuate a problem in order to keep offering the solution, while lining the pockets of food corporations and politicians. They need poor people!

So as we do when starting other wars, there is propaganda to create fear. We are told our kids will starve without government assistance and free food, and we believe it, and take the "free" stuff. Very easy to manipulate people with fear and emotion.

My wife taught in public school the past few years. Among the long list of the ridiculous, she said they were strongly promoting feeding kids breakfast. They would require kids coming into school to march through the breakfast line. Some kind of quota to meet or something.

And as for public schools, there is no reforming them. It is a stupid, corrupt and evil system, which is why my wife quit last year. As with other gov't programs, public schools exist to take our money by force, even if you don't have kids, and give to corporations. My wife saw art curriculum for her district for $200,000 which went unused. Spelling booklets for each student for $45 (what happened to paper and pencil?). The stories she tells about uncaring parents and kids running wild and disinterested principals and on and on could fill a book. Again, it is a free program, therefore parents expect others to take their responsibility. And kids don't care about learning because they will be fed even without useful skills. 

The best thing for education would be to shut down public schools tomorrow, and let people take responsibility for their kids teaching themselves or whatever, and make the kids responsible. A kid can often learn in one hour more than they do in a day in public school. As they get older, cut support for kids so they realize they need to prepare for a job. How is it we have so many kids and teenagers doing nothing while we have immigrant workers we are trying to keep out? If all these kids are starving, why aren't they doing that work? I worked on farms from age 11. It can be done. I did not realize I was being abused.

Government wants people to feel stupid and helpless and dependent. So many young parents tell me they don't know how to teach their kids to read. Huh? You graduated high school or college and you can't teach a 5 year old?

Government programs prosper when we don't know how to cook, teach, grow food, or whatever. You would think people on a homesteading site would be for self-sufficiency, but turns out many see dependence and helplessness as the only way to survive.
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;


----------



## JeffreyD

DJ in WA said:


> Didn't make it throught the whole thread, but here's some thoughts that may have been covered:
> 
> So I see the same short-term emotional thinking going on here that I see with tobacco users. They need it now! Who cares about the long term cancer.
> 
> Likewise, we want free food now! Forget where the money comes from or the dependence it creates, and the increased poverty long term which makes it worse. Sure, we can find hard luck stories, but multiply them by ten after government gets involved. And then we keep saying more government is the fix! As someone said government is the disease masquerading as the cure. Like a firefighter near here who was setting fires and being the hero for being first on scene to put it out. That is your savior, the government.
> 
> So we complain about lack of, or low-paying jobs, as we throw all our money at government to pay for free stuff. So how does the economy thrive when supporting an army of bureaucrats that produce nothing? And the money going to corporations for providing the "free" food.
> 
> How do we prosper by sending a dollar to WA DC and getting 30 cents back after the fraud, waste and abuse? I mean, if you think people get richer by throwing money away, PM me and I'll let you give it to me! Send me a thousand dollars and I'll give you back a hundred bucks worth of food to "keep you from starving."
> 
> So poor people pay a big price for this free stuff, but the money is taken in ways that are not visible. Like printing money to pay for it, which raises the cost of living.
> 
> The 1950's were prosperous because we slashed government spending after WW2.
> 
> We make more poor people by them becoming dependent and working less. Prosperity should come from effort, but why work if you are being supported? As they say, you get more of whatever you subsidize. Subsidize corn farmers and you get too much corn. Subsidize poor people and you get less work and too much poverty. Support people too stupid to care for their basic needs and you get more stupid people. Pure fantasy to believe you can have it any other way. Somebody needs to work! You can either be a producer or a parasite (welfare recipient, gov't worker, or corporation sucking gov't teat).
> 
> As mentioned, the rate of single parent households has skyrocketed since the war on poverty replaced dads. And then there is more poverty and crime in those households. But as per usual, government has to perpetuate a problem in order to keep offering the solution, while lining the pockets of food corporations and politicians. They need poor people!
> 
> So as we do when starting other wars, there is propaganda to create fear. We are told our kids will starve without government assistance and free food, and we believe it, and take the "free" stuff. Very easy to manipulate people with fear and emotion.
> 
> My wife taught in public school the past few years. Among the long list of the ridiculous, she said they were strongly promoting feeding kids breakfast. They would require kids coming into school to march through the breakfast line. Some kind of quota to meet or something.
> 
> And as for public schools, there is no reforming them. It is a stupid, corrupt and evil system, which is why my wife quit last year. As with other gov't programs, public schools exist to take our money by force, even if you don't have kids, and give to corporations. My wife saw art curriculum for her district for $200,000 which went unused. Spelling booklets for each student for $45 (what happened to paper and pencil?). The stories she tells about uncaring parents and kids running wild and disinterested principals and on and on could fill a book. Again, it is a free program, therefore parents expect others to take their responsibility. And kids don't care about learning because they will be fed even without useful skills.
> 
> The best thing for education would be to shut down public schools tomorrow, and let people take responsibility for their kids teaching themselves or whatever, and make the kids responsible. A kid can often learn in one hour more than they do in a day in public school. As they get older, cut support for kids so they realize they need to prepare for a job. How is it we have so many kids and teenagers doing nothing while we have immigrant workers we are trying to keep out? If all these kids are starving, why aren't they doing that work? I worked on farms from age 11. It can be done. I did not realize I was being abused.
> 
> Government wants people to feel stupid and helpless and dependent. So many young parents tell me they don't know how to teach their kids to read. Huh? You graduated high school or college and you can't teach a 5 year old?
> 
> Government programs prosper when we don't know how to cook, teach, grow food, or whatever. You would think people on a homesteading site would be for self-sufficiency, but turns out many see dependence and helplessness as the only way to survive.
> &#12288;
> &#12288;
> &#12288;


Well said!


----------



## DJ in WA

One more thought.

It just occurred to me that while we're discussing how to keep kids from starving, we are in the middle of an obesity epidemic. Which of course leads to diseases like diabetes.

I've read it is probable the lifespan of future generations will decline.

Part of the problem is government programs to push food on us and on our kids in the schools. Like defense contractors who need wars to use up bombs, food contractors need us to eat more so they can get the big government money.

And on top of that, government subsidizes the crops used to make junk food, like corn and soybeans.

On the whole, we could use more starvation in this country. But again, we will be told we are starving to get us to eat more, and we believe.

Government is our national religion. We believe it is essential to salvation. We revere gov't propaganda as scripture, which is no surprise as we were indoctrinated in gov't schools. Soon we'll be bowing to WA DC five times daily so we remember the source of life.


----------



## Irish Pixie

wr said:


> Between extreme poverty and welfare diets, a couple of reserves had to literally purchase kitchen appliances and set up programs teaching people how to cook, menu plan and grocery shop.
> 
> I believe the program was initiated about 15 years ago and while it's been ongoing, it helped a lot of people.
> 
> People can learn but sometimes, they need a hand to break the cycle.


Thank you for making a point that I obviously could not get across.


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> *The inmates are running the asylum and they have twerked their way into positions of authority.*The asylum is the government and the inmates are the liberals who strive for nothing less that the destruction of Western Civilization and the Christian standards upon which it was founded.


What an absolutely ridiculous statement. 

As long as you brought up "christian standards"- didn't jesus feed people? I believe he was all about compassionate and sharing what little he had with the less fortunate, correct? I don't see much compassion in this thread. I see a bunch of "I've got mine, too bad for you" tho.

This is my golden rule: "Trying to live according to the Golden Rule means trying to empathize with other people, including those who may be very different from us. Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect â qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from. And although it isnât possible to know what it really feels like to be a different person or live in different circumstances and have different life experiences, it isnât difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to others. For this reason many people find the Golden Ruleâs corollary â "do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself" â more pragmatic."

â&#8201;Maria MacLachlan, Think Humanism


----------



## Txsteader

wr said:


> Between extreme poverty and welfare diets, a couple of reserves had to literally purchase kitchen appliances and set up programs teaching people how to cook, menu plan and grocery shop.
> 
> I believe the program was initiated about 15 years ago and while it's been ongoing, it helped a lot of people.
> 
> People can learn but sometimes, they need a hand to break the cycle.


We were taught in home-ec, in high school. Apparently such subjects don't exist anymore which is an indication of the decline of American education......but that's a subject for another thread.


----------



## TripleD

JeffreyD said:


> One can cook almost anywhere. On the engine of your car, or make a pit. Lots of food doesn't even need to be cooked.


Being a single man here with a full kitchen with two fridges running right now ''hog killing time'' I cook with a crock pot most of the time. So a full kitchen isn't a necessity .


----------



## no really

wr said:


> Between extreme poverty and welfare diets, a couple of reserves had to literally purchase kitchen appliances and set up programs teaching people how to cook, menu plan and grocery shop.
> 
> I believe the program was initiated about 15 years ago and while it's been ongoing, it helped a lot of people.
> 
> People can learn but sometimes, they need a hand to break the cycle.


No disagreeing there, but there also needs to be a bit of a stick with the carrot. No access to junk food. To many will not be interested in learning, they will take the easy road.

Remove the junk food from food stamps. Before any one gets upset about food deserts think about the idea that if these small stores in the neighborhoods that sell only junk. If the majority of the customers couldn't buy it but could the nutritional foods, they would quickly convert their stock to fit the FS restrictions. 

Any one that receives FS would be required to attend training in cooking and shopping. I am appalled by the fact that it is something that needs happen but for a small group it does.


----------



## Irish Pixie

TripleD said:


> Being a *single man* here with a *full kitchen with two fridges* running right now ''hog killing time'' I cook with a crock pot most of the time. So a full kitchen isn't a necessity .


How can you compare yourself to a single mother with a couple kids that has a hot plate and a cooler? You have what you need, correct? Others might not.

Where is the compassion and empathy for people less fortunate? When did a portion of our society lose the ability? Why is it now considered "moral" to denigrate those with less? Many consider the homeless to be sub-human, or just invisible. The poor don't deserve better. Minorities are the enemy. Is it simply a way for people to feel better about themselves? Look at those people, they can't even feed themselves. They are like animals needing to be fed. There are very very few of us that would neglect our pets and stock so why do we neglect the poor?


----------



## Westvalleyfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> What an absolutely ridiculous statement.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you brought up "christian standards"- didn't jesus feed people? I believe he was all about compassionate and sharing what little he had with the less fortunate, correct? I don't see much compassion in this thread. I see a bunch of "I've got mine, too bad for you" tho.
> 
> 
> 
> This is my golden rule: "Trying to live according to the Golden Rule means trying to empathize with other people, including those who may be very different from us. Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect â qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from. And although it isnât possible to know what it really feels like to be a different person or live in different circumstances and have different life experiences, it isnât difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to others. For this reason many people find the Golden Ruleâs corollary â "do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself" â more pragmatic."
> 
> 
> 
> â&#8201;Maria MacLachlan, Think Humanism





I agree that it's our responsibility to help our neighbors but I don't think that requires a system built around force with extreme amounts of waste, Cronyism, and corruption.


----------



## TripleD

Irish Pixie said:


> How can you compare yourself to a single mother with a couple kids that has a hot plate and a cooler? You have what you need, correct? Others might not.
> 
> Where is the compassion and empathy for people less fortunate? When did a portion of our society lose the ability? Why is it now considered "moral" to denigrate those with less? Many consider the homeless to be sub-human, or just invisible. The poor don't deserve better. Minorities are the enemy. Is it simply a way for people to feel better about themselves? Look at those people, they can't even feed themselves. They are like animals needing to be fed. There are very very few of us that would neglect our pets and stock so why do we neglect the poor?


IP, as I sit in this office in one of the poorest counties in N.C. I know of no homeless people. This town is 70% black. The school furnishes breakfast and lunch for all students. 

Your area may very . 200 yards away is a food pantry and two days a week I can go through the office dumpster and eat for weeks on what is thrown away.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Westvalleyfarm said:


> I agree that it's our responsibility to help our neighbors but I don't think that requires a system built around force with extreme amounts of waste, Cronyism, and corruption.


That's a wonderful sentiment, but did you gather from the posts on this thread that people would be willing to voluntarily donate money to charity? I sure didn't... 

The system needs to be overhauled, I've said that all along, but it cannot be done on a voluntary basis.


----------



## Irish Pixie

TripleD said:


> IP, as I sit in this office in one of the poorest counties in N.C. I know of no homeless people. This town is 70% black. The school furnishes breakfast and lunch for all students.
> 
> Your area may very . 200 yards away is a food pantry and two days a week I can go through the office dumpster and eat for weeks on what is thrown away.


So everyone should dumpster dive to eat? You do it voluntarily? You've indicated you have abundant pork so it must be a thing you do because you can and not because you're forced to, correct?

There are homeless in your county, just because you don't know of them doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------



## po boy

no really said:


> No disagreeing there, but there also needs to be a bit of a stick with the carrot. No access to junk food. To many will not be interested in learning, they will take the easy road.
> 
> Remove the junk food from food stamps. Before any one gets upset about food deserts think about the idea that if these small stores in the neighborhoods that sell only junk. If the majority of the customers couldn't buy it but could the nutritional foods, they would quickly convert their stock to fit the FS restrictions.
> 
> Any one that receives FS would be required to attend training in cooking and shopping. *I am appalled by the fact that it is something that needs happen but for a small group it does*.


My mom and four sisters did all the cooking and I learned by trial and error when I moved out. 

These days most families don't do a lot of from scratch cooking and eat out/takeout/have delivered a fair amount of what they eat. We eat out less than 5 times a year and haven't had pizza etc delivered in years.


----------



## oneraddad

Section 8 housing comes with a stove and fridge


----------



## TripleD

Irish Pixie said:


> So everyone should dumpster dive to eat? You do it voluntarily? You've indicated you have abundant pork so it must be a thing you do because you can and not because you're forced to, correct?
> 
> There are homeless in your county, just because you don't know of them doesn't mean they don't exist.


I think I know my county quite well. The dumpster diving is what those ''less fortunate'' choose not to eat ! Rent here is between $300 and $700 per month. I should know because that is my business. 

I just say there is too much waste ,fraud and abuse in the system.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, some posters seem to think that I did the research indicated in the article. I did not. I simply posted it for discussion. If you (collective you) have an issue with the information please contact the US Department of Agriculture who compiled the statistics. Telling me "duh", accusing me of "bomb dropping", insinuating I'm racist, and the like isn't nice. Expected, but not nice.


Really? 
I was deleted for saying 'duh' & not being relevant to topic. Well, its a duh moment. There's 13% Black population in this country. Is THAT relevant to the topic? Why would small % of the population have MORE on food stamps? Its a no-brainer that they would not.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mnn2501 said:


> SO your stats of people getting food stamps:
> 40.2% white
> 25.7% black
> 10.3% Hispanic
> 2.1% Asian
> 1.2% Native American
> 
> Lets now look at the population of the U.S.
> 
> 62.6% white
> 13.2% black
> 17.4% Hispanic
> 5.4% Asian
> 1.2% Native American
> 
> How about the following for headlines:
> "Twice as many Blacks get food stamps as should"
> or
> "People of Asian descent in America only take half the food stamps as a percent of their population."
> or this one:
> "Blacks overwhelmingly use food stamps more than any other race in the U.S.A."
> How about "Obama's policies prove overwhelmingly bad for Blacks"


Post of the day award.


----------



## mreynolds

MO_cows said:


> The name of the program is Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. With the key word being, "Supplemental". It was never intended to be the entire food budget! Just to give people more money for food so they could eat a more varied and healthy diet. So, children in a family that sees a reduction in or loss of SNAP benefits might not eat as healthy or varied a diet as they could have with the benefits, but there won't be starving children in the streets.
> 
> Also don't forget there is the overlapping program WIC which covers basic nutrition items. Kids might get tired of eating cereal and other basic items covered by WIC but they aren't going to starve. Another generation of Americans with stories to tell of their hard times, like the Depression survivors tell of living on beans,cornbread and taters?
> 
> Just because we aren't a third world country doesn't mean we have to provide every man woman and child with a middle class lifestyle at the taxpayers expense.


My dad told me a story once about his childhood at school. He always thought he had it worse than everyone else at school. He took turnip or mustard greens for lunch in a syrup can. One day he "conned" another kid into trading syrup cans at lunch sight unseen. When he opened up the other boys can he found pecans and a pair of pliers for lunch.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> So everyone should dumpster dive to eat? You do it voluntarily? You've indicated you have abundant pork so it must be a thing you do because you can and not because you're forced to, correct?
> 
> There are homeless in your county, just because you don't know of them doesn't mean they don't exist.


While I would agree with you that nearly every place in the world has at least a few homeless, some hide better than others, I would also offer this piece of advice.
Unless it is a sealed bag of chips, etc, I would strongly reccommend anything taken from a dumpster be heated or cooked to a minimum temperature for sanitary reasons if nothing else.

And here we are back to where we started..........


----------



## Tricky Grama

poppy said:


> You know full well the culture I'm talking about. No responsibility at all. You see it in inner city neighborhoods and white trash trailer parks across the country. The kids run wild with little or no supervision or guidance from the parents.


No one is willing to address the 'cultural' problem of 72% of black children born into single mom households.


----------



## Irish Pixie

oneraddad said:


> Section 8 housing comes with a stove and fridge


Yup, for the most part and if the appliances actually work. Some people can't get into section 8 housing, right? Maybe they are on a waiting list, they are abused women in hiding, maybe there just isn't anything available.


----------



## oneraddad

I remember my first trip to the grocery store with my new wife, we had no idea what we were doing. I'll never forget when they were ringing up my canned veggies and the asparagus was $3 a can, I thought they had made a mistake.


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> That's a wonderful sentiment, but did you gather from the posts on this thread that people would be willing to voluntarily donate money to charity? I sure didn't...
> 
> The system needs to be overhauled, I've said that all along, but it cannot be done on a voluntary basis.


I am sure a lot of the folks on here do give and volunteer...............

*One* of the things I have done for years is plant more than we could use and sell or give away the excess. In 2014 I made about $20, but gave away about 20 bushels of food. Selling some helps me find the needy. 
I sold a bushel of green beans to an 86 yr old lady for $10 (LOL) and gave her several bushels of veggies. For Christmas I gave her greens, sweet potatoes and a Christmas card with $20 as I felt bad about that $10 for the beans.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> No one is willing to address the 'cultural' problem of 72% of black children born into single mom households.


What can be done? Can you explain?


----------



## oneraddad

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, for the most part and if the appliances actually work. Some people can't get into section 8 housing, right? Maybe they are on a waiting list, they are abused women in hiding, maybe there just isn't anything available.


Landlords must meet certain criteria for section 8 or they don't get paid, no stove or fridge no money.


----------



## Westvalleyfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> That's a wonderful sentiment, but did you gather from the posts on this thread that people would be willing to voluntarily donate money to charity? I sure didn't...
> 
> 
> 
> The system needs to be overhauled, I've said that all along, but it cannot be done on a voluntary basis.




I feel like most people are generally good people that would help others. I believe our current system has jaded people on this need. I think both sides uses emotions while addressing this issue, and that just leads to spinning of tires and getting no where. 

We have 5 million open jobs that can't/won't be fulfilled in the market. We're seeing a declining workforce with an ever growing demand for tax revenue. I agree with Ben Franklin that making poverty more comfortable leads to more poverty.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Fishindude said:


> My midwestern community isn't too bad off. Jobs are available if you want them, however 60% of the kids in our school system are on the free lunch / breakfast program. In my opinion the reason they are on this is because .... if the government is going to feed their kids for free, the parents are going to take advantage of it. These same kids aren't going to starve if they shut these programs off, their parents would pay for school lunches or send them with a brown bag. Yeah, they might not eat as well, but they will get fed.
> 
> These same families manage to equip. themselves all with cell phones, have cable TV, internet, parents smoke and have beer, drive vehicles, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they would give up the TV before the kids went hungry. If they didn't take care of the kids, lock up the parents and put the kids in foster homes. When others saw this happening, they might straighten up their acts.


Post of the day awarad.

We will soon be funding 'tv insecure' & 'iphone insecre' folks...


----------



## TripleD

oneraddad said:


> Landlords must meet certain criteria for section 8 or they don't get paid, no stove or fridge no money.


Exactly right on. Every burner on the stove, fridge , and all plumbing . I should know.....


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> What can be done? Can you explain?


Explaining why it's necessary to learn how to cook is a big enough problem, apparently.
Doing the same for "the birds and the bees" reminds me of that line from the movie "Jaws".

"We're gonna need a bigger forum."

eep::hysterical:


----------



## Irish Pixie

oneraddad said:


> Landlords must meet certain criteria for section 8 or they don't get paid, no stove or fridge no money.


I'm not arguing with you. Section 8 housing must be a utopia, far be it from me to disillusion you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Explaining why it's necessary to learn how to cook is a big enough problem, apparently.
> Doing the same for "the birds and the bees" reminds me of that line from the movie "Jaws".
> 
> "We're gonna need a bigger forum."
> 
> eep::hysterical:


Sigh. The poster complained about black children being born into single mom households, right? That's what I read. I asked rather than just complain about it what can be done. I'm sorry you didn't understand.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> We will soon be funding 'tv insecure' & 'iphone insecre' folks...


What an absolutely ridiculous statement.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Tricky Grama View Post
> No one is willing to *address the 'cultural' problem* of 72% of black children born into single mom households.


When some try to "address" the problem, others whine about "murder"


----------



## MO_cows

oneraddad said:


> Landlords must meet certain criteria for section 8 or they don't get paid, no stove or fridge no money.


There is an inspection before the property is approved, and periodic inspections afterwards, is what an acquaintance who has rentals in the program has told us.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Tricky Grama View Post
> No one is willing to *address the 'cultural' problem* of 72% of black children born into single mom households.


When some try to "address" the problem, others whine about "murder"


----------



## TripleD

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not arguing with you. Section 8 housing must be a utopia, far be it from me to disillusion you.


I don't plan to argue about it maybe you can enlighten me about it. Here its great !!!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> When some try to "address" the problem, others whine about "murder"


I was thinking the same thing. Plus shutting down clinics that have low cost, more highly effective birth control, and then whining about food programs is ludicrous. The very definition of hypocrisy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

TripleD said:


> I don't plan to argue about it maybe you can enlighten me about it. Here its great !!!


Perhaps it is where you are... Do you think it's the same in New York, Chicago, or New Orleans?


----------



## TripleD

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps it is where you are... Do you think it's the same in New York, Chicago, or New Orleans?


Like I said in an earlier post I do know my county. Your area may vary....


----------



## MO_cows

Bearfootfarm said:


> When some try to "address" the problem, others whine about "murder"


Abortions don't "address the problem", that's just a symptom. Nice cheap shot, though. 

There are all kinds of groups doing good works with "at risk" kids. Hopefully in a few years they will have enough success to move the needle on the statistics. Grass roots and community organizations can change more lives for the better than any government program.


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps it is where you are... Do you think it's the same in New York, Chicago, or New Orleans?


The rules are the same since it's a federal program.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> What an absolutely ridiculous statement.


Not necessarily. We already have a free phone program. Ay least my MIL gets a new one every year anyway on some kind of program. Now they tell her she can get a smart phone next time around. Free.


----------



## oneraddad

Irish Pixie said:


> I was thinking the same thing. Plus shutting down clinics that have low cost, more highly effective birth control, and then whining about food programs is ludicrous. The very definition of hypocrisy.



So the solution to feeding the poor is to make them have more abortions ?


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> I was thinking the same thing. Plus shutting down clinics that have low cost, more highly effective birth control, and then whining about food programs is ludicrous. The very definition of hypocrisy.


How is, not wanting tax payer abortions, and recognizing the abuse of our food programs, how it that ludicrous
And who is against effective birth control?
Sounds like the very definition of convoluted and foolish thinking.


----------



## TripleD

MO_cows said:


> The rules are the same since it's a federal program.


We do have some very good managers at section 8 here.


----------



## mreynolds

To fix food stamps you first have to make it to where you can actually get off them. Its not even close to that way now. Once you are on them its near impossible to get off them. Just by the way its set up. 

Anyone wonder why that is? You figure that out and you can start to fix it.


----------



## haley1

mreynolds said:


> My dad told me a story once about his childhood at school. He always thought he had it worse than everyone else at school. He took turnip or mustard greens for lunch in a syrup can. One day he "conned" another kid into trading syrup cans at lunch sight unseen. When he opened up the other boys can he found pecans and a pair of pliers for lunch.


Those greens are very nutritious but very bitter


----------



## City Bound

Txsteader said:


> We were taught in home-ec, in high school. Apparently such subjects don't exist anymore which is an indication of the decline of American education......but that's a subject for another thread.


I wanted to take home ec but they stopped the program in my middle school two years before I got there. I took wood working shop for a year in middle school and that one year of wood shop taught me so much. over the years I have done contracting jobs using that little bit of knowledge from shop class and made more money then any other knowledge I learned in school.

Shop classes and home ec are essential to the back bone of America.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. The poster complained about black children being born into single mom households, right? That's what I read. I asked rather than just complain about it what can be done. I'm sorry you didn't understand.


I absolutely understood, did you?
BTW, I am getting quicker at seeing the set-ups coming. 




Bearfootfarm said:


> When some try to "address" the problem, others whine about "murder"


And right on cue.........



Irish Pixie said:


> I was thinking the same thing. Plus shutting down clinics that have low cost, more highly effective birth control, and then whining about food programs is ludicrous. The very definition of hypocrisy.




Before the next obvious jab is made, I'll block it now, lol.

I have more than one answer to the problems presented, and I'm sure others do too.
But if it's going to descend into PC and insults, I'll just let my previous statements stand.
Those who are smart enough to figure it out, will do it.



oneraddad said:


> So the solution to feeding the poor is to make them have more abortions ?



I'm sure you've heard the expression, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."


----------



## po boy

haley1 said:


> Those greens are very nutritious but very bitter


I remember some kids bringing a sandwich to school wrapped in newspaper and some kids worked in the kitchen for a free lunch. That's where I learned to wash a whole lot of trays............. Saved my dad a quarter.


----------



## haley1

Maybe we need to open clinics to voluntarily to fix people so they don' t keep have kids....... Bet this will anger a few


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> The rules are the same since it's a federal program.


Again, do you _honestly_ think it's the same in those big cities? Or do think the housing authorities are as understaffed as the rest of the agencies? Just maybe?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Not necessarily. We already have a free phone program. Ay least my MIL gets a new one every year anyway on some kind of program. Now they tell her she can get a smart phone next time around. Free.


C'mon. She specifically said, "cable and iphone insecure". Is your MIL on welfare?


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> How is, not wanting tax payer abortions, and recognizing the abuse of our food programs, how it that ludicrous
> And who is against effective birth control?
> Sounds like the very definition of convoluted and foolish thinking.


Unless you live in a state that funds abortion (there are I believe 17 that do) there is no federal funding for abortion except for the health of the mother, rape or incest. 

Not so foolish or convoluted.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> To fix food stamps you first have to make it to where you can actually get off them. Its not even close to that way now. Once you are on them its near impossible to get off them. Just by the way its set up.
> 
> Anyone wonder why that is? You figure that out and you can start to fix it.


Exactly. How do you do it without having hungry kids?


----------



## City Bound

Tricky Grama said:


> No one is willing to address the 'cultural' problem of 72% of black children born into single mom households.


That is do to personal choice. Their culture is an expression of their values. 
I can think of literally hundreds of white families that I know that are families simply because of an accidental pregnancy. They simply took responsibility and became a family.

The blacks usually dump the baby on the grandma to raise if they do keep it.


----------



## no really

What happened to the thread about Food Stamps? Went to the bathroom and poof it's gone. 

Oh well it's time for the pissing contests to get serious. Gonna enjoy a cup of tea and check out the other forums I belong too.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> That is do to personal choice. Their culture is an expression of their values.
> I can think of literally hundreds of white families that I know that are families simply because of an accidental pregnancy. They simply took responsibility and became a family.
> 
> *The blacks usually dump the baby on the grandma to raise if they do keep it.*



This is one of the most racist statements I've ever seen on HT. I'm embarrassed to see it posted here.


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> What happened to the thread about Food Stamps? Went to the bathroom and poof it's gone.
> 
> Oh well it's time for the pissing contests to get serious. Gonna enjoy a cup of tea and check out the other forums I belong too.


Everyone wants to whine and witch about paying for programs and how great it is to be poor in the US but not many have constructive ways to make it better. 

It's easier to say it's not your problem and wander off, I guess.


----------



## oneraddad

Some whine and witch while sitting in front of their computer. Some will say, but I donate money. But how many go out once, twice or more a month to care for the homeless that mean so much to them ?


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. The poster complained about black children being born into single mom households, right? That's what I read. I asked rather than just complain about it what can be done. I'm sorry you didn't understand.


 They need to do something about it themselves. 
Whenever anyone tries to help black people, other then throwing free money at them, the black community becomes hostile and defensive and says that those people ether do not understand or that they are racist.


----------



## arabian knight

oneraddad said:


> Section 8 housing comes with a stove and fridge


And the stove even has a oven, can you believe that? Wow how things have changed over the years, and to think the left thinks people can't do anything for themselves


----------



## arabian knight

mreynolds said:


> Not necessarily. We already have a free phone program. Ay least my MIL gets a new one every year anyway on some kind of program. Now they tell her she can get a smart phone next time around. Free.


And there is talk about free internet for those same dudes as well. Lets see now free phone, free internet, sure why not free iPhone as well. Heck some places even now give a discount in those section 8 housing so you can get a break on your CABLE bill for goodness sakes.


----------



## Irish Pixie

oneraddad said:


> Some whine and witch while sitting in front of their computer. Some will say, but I donate money. But how many go out once, twice or more a month to care for the homeless that mean so much to them ?


Donating money is much better than just whining and witching, isn't it? Plus how do you know they don't volunteer their time as well?


----------



## oneraddad

I know a black guy that came from nothing with parents that didn't give a dang. He's the father of my Grandchildren and makes a very comfortable income for his family and someone that I love very much. Not only do they live in a very nice house and drive newer cars, they rent out the first house they ever bought. You can be anything you want in America, I've heard Obama say it many times. So if you can't figure out how to eat, it's your own fault.


----------



## oneraddad

Irish Pixie said:


> Donating money is much better than just whining and witching, isn't it? Plus how do you know they don't volunteer their time as well?



Because if they donated time we'd never hear the end of it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

oneraddad said:


> Because if they donated time we'd never hear the end of it.


So you say.


----------



## oneraddad

Irish Pixie said:


> So you say.



I've heard you mention many times that you donate money, but haven't heard you mention what soup kitchen you donate time to. Nows your chance !


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, do you _honestly_ think it's the same in those big cities? Or do think the housing authorities are as understaffed as the rest of the agencies? Just maybe?


 I live in New York city. I have had friends and girlfriends that lived in the housing projects. I also know people who work for the housing authority fixing elevators, painting, doing up keep. I have been in projects in the south Bronx, coney island, Spanish harlem, and really bad areas of queens. 

You know what I saw there? Beautiful apartments that I wish I could rent and live in. Three bedroom apartments with lots of closets, a large living room, and a nice kitchen. The best place I saw was an apartment in coney island, a block from the beach with massive a bedroom, and a massive living room with a million dollar view of the harbor, the bridges and the Manhattan skyline.

Now, what moved in is another story. They took those lovely apartments and many of them were trashed. Graffiti on the walls, garbage in the halls, vandalism. When I went up to that apartment with the million dollar view in coney island I had to ride up in a burnt up elevator. One of the residents of the community set it on fire. Workers who work in these places tell me that they struggle just to keep up with the repairs caused by vandalism. in the worst projects the people just open their doors and throw their garbage in the hall. They figure it is just easier to toss the garbage in the hall and let housing clean it up then to walk to the garbage shoot down the hall.
My friend who repairs the elevators in these places told me that there is garbage all over the halls. Dirty diapers are included in what is tossed out into the hall and the kids left unsupervised sometimes take the diapers and draw on the walls with the contents. 

Some one I know had to quite her job as a social worker and become a librarian because back in the 80's she was threatened too many times by the very same "poor" people she was trying to help. She said that they use to have to stand to the side of the door when they knocked because sometimes shots would come through the doors when the people inside heard knocking at their door. 
I know a police officer who had to have his skull stapled together after being attacked with a baseball bat as he patrolled the projects.


----------



## oneraddad

no really said:


> What happened to the thread about Food Stamps? Went to the bathroom and poof it's gone.
> 
> Oh well it's time for the pissing contests to get serious. Gonna enjoy a cup of tea and check out the other forums I belong too.



One of them other forums you belong to don't like to hear the truth and will ban those they don't agree with. Then they have the nerve to complain about the moderation here.


----------



## arabian knight

no really said:


> What happened to the thread about Food Stamps? Went to the bathroom and poof it's gone.
> 
> Oh well it's time for the pissing contests to get serious. Gonna enjoy a cup of tea and check out the other forums I belong too.


 Yes so will I as I have my cup of coffee along with some homemade chocolate cake I baked yesterday.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> This is one of the most racist statements I've ever seen on HT. I'm embarrassed to see it posted here.


Can you deny it though? Maybe it is not like that where you live and were there are maybe 100 blck families scattered around your county. 

Here though, it is a fact of life. they dump the kid on their grandmother or mother. Abortion has cut the number of children needing to be dumped though or it has reduced the burden down to just one child that that mother can sometimes raise alone.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> This is one of the most racist statements I've ever seen on HT. I'm embarrassed to see it posted here.


I guess the truth hurts at times.


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> Everyone wants to whine and witch about paying for programs and how great it is to be poor in the US but not many have constructive ways to make it better.
> 
> It's easier to say it's not your problem and wander off, I guess.


Hmmm, a cup of tea means what? Oh yeah not my problem. 

You prove my point with the personal attack. :thumb:


----------



## no really

oneraddad said:


> One of them other forums you belong to don't like to hear the truth and will ban those they don't agree with. Then they have the nerve to complain about the moderation here.


Since you know my forums well can you tell me when I last posted there? Cause I can't remember or been there?


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps it is where you are... Do you think it's the same in New York, Chicago, or New Orleans?


Do you have proof its not?


----------



## dixiegal62

About section 8 housing... we contract to paint a lot of them both old and new ones. The new ones are nice, not fancy but nice. As a country we pay alot of taxes to build nice homes for the poor. Then we get ones that needs redoing after a few years and they are distroyed. For the most part people who are lucky enough to get these homes instead of being homeless don't even appreciate them not one little bit.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. How do you do it without having hungry kids?


You have their parents feed them.


----------



## City Bound

dixiegal62 said:


> About section 8 housing... we contract to paint a lot of them both old and new ones. The new ones are nice, not fancy but nice. As a country we pay alot of taxes to build nice homes for the poor. Then we get ones that needs redoing after a few years and they are distroyed. For the most part people who are lucky enough to get these homes instead of being homeless don't even appreciate them not one little bit.


That's a fact, jack.


----------



## MO_cows

Overall this has been a pretty good thread IMHO. It started out as race baiting but evolved into a true discussion with most people taking the high road. 

What Citybound said about the treatment of public housing, unfortunately I have heard a lot in other places too. Many of the "projects" that were heralded as such a social breakthru when they were built, have had to be torn down. I guess when housing is free, and if you tear one up or trash it, you can just move in to another one that is all fixed up, it gets treated as disposable. How do you change that mindset? You are not likely to change nasty habits like throwing the garbage out in the hallway, but if you are on section 8 and create a track record of tearing up the property, that should be grounds to cancel the benefit. A lot of people's behavior is modeled by consequences, and if there are no consequences the behavior won't change.


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> Hmmm, a cup of tea means what? Oh yeah not my problem.
> 
> You prove my point with the personal attack. :thumb:


Um. I was referring to your "p*ssing match" comment. It was beneath you.


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> Um. I was referring to your "p*ssing match" comment. It was beneath you.


I don't feel the comment was anything other than an accurate description.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> You have their parents feed them.


With what? Can you explain how someone with no or very little education, training, or experience can get employment that pays well enough in this economy to support themselves without help? Don't forget that many current food stamp recipients are employed full time, and still get benefits.

It's oh so easy to say "let them eat cake" isn't it? SMH


----------



## oneraddad

no really said:


> Since you know my forums well can you tell me when I last posted there? Cause I can't remember or been there?


I only know of CC and I don't pay attention to your posts


----------



## 1948CaseVAI

Irish Pixie said:


> This is one of the most racist statements I've ever seen on HT. I'm embarrassed to see it posted here.


You are long on theories and very, very short on real understanding of how the world works, aren't you? Answer police calls in the ghetto for a few years and you will never think about these issues the same way again.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI

Irish Pixie said:


> People without feelings are sociopaths. I'm very glad I have them.



Agreed, but I didn't say you shouldn't have them, I said you should not formulate public policy based on them. Formulate your personal actions on them if you want. Huge difference.


----------



## oneraddad

Irish Pixie said:


> With what? Can you explain how someone with no or very little education, training, or experience can get employment that pays well enough in this economy to support themselves without help? Don't forget that many current food stamp recipients are employed full time, and still get benefits.
> 
> It's oh so easy to say "let them eat cake" isn't it? SMH


I'll tell you how. My son in-law started selling cell phone accessories at a kiosk in a mall.


----------



## no really

oneraddad said:


> I only know of CC and I don't pay attention to your posts



Well I figured since you were certain about my being in other forums you might remember, don't know what CC is though. 

I'm sorry you don't pay attention to my posts maybe I should try harder..:hysterical:

My main forum is not an English speaking group.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> It's oh so easy to say "let them eat cake" isn't it? SMH



Just as it is easy to say we are not doing enough and need to do more when in reality all efforts are failing or creating new problems. 

You keep accusing people of lacking empathy and compassion but failing to see all the examples and personal stories people are sharing that are full of empathy and compassion. What many are saying here is that enabling people is not compassion or empathy and that sometimes compassion comes in the form of discipline. You have three kids I think, can I assume correctly that you love them and at times had to establish rules and discipline so that they could function at a higher level and grow up properly?


----------



## oneraddad

Why are so many people trying to migrate to a place that can't figure out how to eat ?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> I don't care about the food stamps, I don't even care if the government wants to create these programs. What I don't like is that the Federal government is the one either implementing, or, mandating these programs. That goes beyond their mandate. The same goes for healthcare insurance and retirement funding. If the individual states want to create these programs, I say have at it.


"Mandate?" This view primarily comes from a Biblical definition, yes? Why does it even matter if it's the state distributing the food or the people? Both happen, but it happens far more effectively with the state.



Irish Pixie said:


> If people rant about the cost of programs shared among many (as in federal taxes) do you honestly think they are going to willingly donate to food programs? C'mon. You know as well I as I do that there are very few that would voluntarily give their "hard earned" money.
> 
> There are kids that would go hungry. There are kids NOW that go hungry, and there are more that are food insecure, they simply do not know where when their next meal will be. That's with food programs.


This is why they want the opportunity to distribute their money how they want. In their eyes, making handicapped and sick people work for them for food and money is benevolence.


----------



## Heritagefarm

arabian knight said:


> And the stove even has a oven, can you believe that? Wow how things have changed over the years, and to think the left thinks people can't do anything for themselves


Aside from invent things and run universities.



mnn2501 said:


> You have their parents feed them.


What do we feed them to?


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> With what? Can you explain how someone with no or very little education, training, or experience can get employment that pays well enough in this economy to support themselves without help? Don't forget that many current food stamp recipients are employed full time, and still get benefits.
> 
> It's oh so easy to say "let them eat cake" isn't it? SMH


Smart Phones, cable TV, spinning wheel covers and booming stereos for their cars, designer clothes, tattoo's, fancy hairdo's and nails, booze/drugs -- surely something can be cut back on to buy food.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> The system needs to be overhauled, I've said that all along, but it cannot be done on a voluntary basis.


Like I said, restrict FS usage to only nutritional food and the program would probably end up costing less (an apple is more filling & nutritional than a bag of chips). But you found fault in that, claiming that single women are incapable of cooking basic food.

So, what is your solution to the problem? How would you overhaul the program?


----------



## Txsteader

OffGridCooker said:


> How is, not wanting tax payer abortions, and recognizing the abuse of our food programs, how it that ludicrous
> And who is against effective birth control?
> Sounds like the very definition of convoluted and foolish thinking.


I've seen the arguments made on this site that women are too ignorant/irresponsible to use birth control properly and, now, to cook on a hot plate.

Perhaps we should be funding classes in birth control & cooking/nutrition. It's remarkable to me how ignorant women have become in just a couple of generations.


----------



## arabian knight

Txsteader said:


> Like I said, restrict FS usage to only nutritional food and the program would probably end up costing less (an apple is more filling & nutritional than a bag of chips). But you found fault in that, claiming that single women are incapable of cooking basic food.
> 
> So, what is your solution to the problem? How would you overhaul the program?


 Well at least in WI this is a good start.

They now require that not less than 67 percent of the SNAP benefits used by a recipient in a month be used to purchase any of the following foods: foods that are on the list of foods authorized for the federal special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC foods); beef; pork; chicken; fish; fresh produce; and fresh, frozen, and canned white potatoes.* In addition, prohibit using SNAP benefits for the purchase of crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other shellfish.â*


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Like I said, restrict FS usage to only nutritional food and the program would probably end up costing less (an apple is more filling & nutritional than a bag of chips). But you found fault in that, claiming that single women are incapable of cooking basic food.
> 
> So, what is your solution to the problem? How would you overhaul the program?


I discussed it with hoddedloki pages ago.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> I've seen the arguments made on this site that women are too ignorant/irresponsible to use birth control properly and, now, to cook on a hot plate.
> 
> Perhaps we should be funding classes in birth control & cooking/nutrition. It's remarkable to me how ignorant women have become in just a couple of generations.


I don't think that women are too ignorant or irresponsible to use birth control. The less effective types that the religious people and companies deem acceptable fail quite often. The more effective birth control is only available in clinics that the religious are shutting down. 

Abortions are being more and more restricted, so no I don't see women as ignorant or irresponsible as much as the religious are trying to control them and force their religious doctrine on them regardless of personal choice.

What puzzles me is after denying effective birth control and restricting abortion a women becomes pregnant, and can't afford to feed herself and her child(ren) the religious say they are worthless and try to defund food programs. Can you explain that to me, please?


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think that women are too ignorant or irresponsible to use birth control. The less effective types that the religious people and companies deem acceptable fail quite often. The more effective birth control is only available in clinics that the religious are shutting down.


Thats funny, my wife got birth control from the local pharmacy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> Thats funny, my wife got birth control from the local pharmacy.


Is your family low income? We're discussing low income people- have been for pages now.


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> Is your family low income? We're discussing low income people- have been for pages now.


Aren't low income women allowed to get their birth control from pharmacies?


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> Aren't low income women allowed to get their birth control from pharmacies?


Sure, if they can afford it. The clinics offer free and very low cost birth control.

The highly effective birth control options, implants and IUDs, can't be done at pharmacies.


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> What puzzles me is after denying effective birth control and restricting abortion a women becomes pregnant, and can't afford to feed herself and her child(ren) the religious say they are worthless and try to defund food programs. Can you explain that to me, please?


What religious group is trying to deny effective birth control?
Seems like a false argument.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure, if they can afford it. The clinics offer free and very low cost birth control.


$4 a month or $10 for 3 months not low enough for you?


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure, if they can afford it. The clinics offer free and very low cost birth control.


Free! Someone pays for it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> What religious group is trying to deny effective birth control?
> Seems like a false argument.


Christians, basically. Can Texas be considered a religious group?  They shut down so many clinics that low income women have to drive for hours to get to clinics that provide implants and IUDs. If you're truly interested, read the thread called, "low income babies" that I started awhile back. 

You missed the hissy fit that Hobby Lobby threw over paying for certain types of birth control? The religious right want to control women's reproduction.


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> Free! Someone pays for it.


Would you rather pay for birth control or babies?


----------



## Heritagefarm

OffGridCooker said:


> What religious group is trying to deny effective birth control?
> Seems like a false argument.


Every religious right group in America? You are not following politics very closely if you are not aware of how rabidly opposed to abortion religious right groups are. However, to separate my own opinion, I oppose abortion, but support women's right to choose. I consider it an immoral option in any case, but am unwilling to force my sense of morality on others.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> $4 a month or $10 for 3 months not low enough for you?


How much is the Dr. app't to get the script? :facepalm:


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Christians, basically. Can Texas be considered a religious group?  They shut down so many clinics that low income women have to drive for hours to get to clinics that provide implants and IUDs. If you're truly interested, read the thread called, "low income babies" that I started a while back.
> 
> You missed the hissy fit that Hobby Lobby threw over paying for certain types of birth control? The religious right want to control women's reproduction.


Women control their own reproduction at all times...it's called dropping your britches.


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> The more effective birth control is only available in clinics that the religious are shutting down.


You can only get effective birth control at an abortion clinic?


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Women control their own reproduction at all times...it's called dropping your britches.


Women that have been raped or victims of incest too? Birth control failure? Many types are not highly effective. Reality is a witch kitty.


----------



## OffGridCooker

Heritagefarm said:


> Every religious right group in America? You are not following politics very closely if you are not aware of how rabidly opposed to abortion religious right groups are. However, to separate my own opinion, I oppose abortion, but support women's right to choose. I consider it an immoral option in any case, but am unwilling to force my sense of morality on others.


Oh is see you have changed the definition of "effective birth control" to abortion!
Sneaky!


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> You can only get effective birth control at an abortion clinic?


I don't know. I know that clinics (low income women's health clinics) are the easiest and cheapest place to get effective birth control. You do realize that not all clinics perform abortions, right?


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> Oh is see you have changed the definition of "effective birth control" to abortion!
> Sneaky!


Abortion isn't birth control. Abortion is pregnancy termination.


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> Would you rather pay for birth control or babies?


Why do I only have two choices?
If I don't give someone free birth control I have to pay for their baby?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Women that have been raped or victims of incest too? Birth control failure? Many types are not highly effective. Reality is a witch kitty.


I understand certain other situations....food stamps...abortion...section 8 housing...the list goes on...is about personal responsibility..stepping up to the plate...not being a lazy good for nothing that expects others to take care of you and whine when it doesn't happen. Nothing wrong with any assistance program to help someone out...get on their feet...but not milk the system for all they can. I know people that can't pay the rent but have plenty for booze...pot..and cigarettes...and much more. Really is simple how one can live by eliminating those extras....But they can't see that. Give x amount for a certain time to get on your feet agai n...except those that do have a disability...a real one...then cut it off. May be biblical but if a man won't work...he shall not eat. Hunger is an excellent motivator.


----------



## Heritagefarm

OffGridCooker said:


> Oh is see you have changed the definition of "effective birth control" to abortion!
> Sneaky!


Sorry. But the religious right want to control birth control, as well. I've think we've done enough of the "be fruitful and multiply" already!


----------



## arabian knight

Heck these Hud housing apartments are getting to me more and more. Heck lots of people would love to have rent at 30% of their income, and everything provided free except for cable and even THAT may in some cases be at a discount.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Women control their own reproduction at all times...it's called dropping your britches.





Irish Pixie said:


> *Women that have been raped or victims of incest too? Birth control failure?* Many types are not highly effective. Reality is a witch kitty.





elevenpoint said:


> I understand certain other situations....food stamps...abortion...section 8 housing...the list goes on...is about personal responsibility..stepping up to the plate...not being a lazy good for nothing that expects others to take care of you and whine when it doesn't happen. Nothing wrong with any assistance program to help someone out...get on their feet...but not milk the system for all they can. I know people that can't pay the rent but have plenty for booze...pot..and cigarettes...and much more. Really is simple how one can live by eliminating those extras....But they can't see that. Give x amount for a certain time to get on your feet agai n...except those that do have a disability...a real one...then cut it off. May be biblical but if a man won't work...he shall not eat. Hunger is an excellent motivator.


Please answer the question that I responded to and stop trying to divert attention from what you said.


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> Why do I only have two choices?
> If I don't give someone free birth control I have to pay for their baby?


What happens if there is sex without birth control? I don't have to explain it, do it?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Please answer the question that I responded to and stop trying to divert attention from what you said.


I did nothing of the sort...I said I understand other situations. That being rape and incest. The rest are personal responsibility. A woman can only get pregnant in a small window of a month. That may be a great time to keep their pants on even if they are on bc. That personal responsibility is about their entire life....sexual relations can produce a child....a needle stuck in an arm full of heroin can produce death....some don't care one bit.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Heritagefarm said:


> Sorry. But the religious right want to control birth control, as well. I've think we've done enough of the "be fruitful and multiply" already!


No...the Pope has a different thought now about birth control.


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> Christians, basically. Can Texas be considered a religious group?  They shut down so many clinics that low income women have to drive for hours to get to clinics that provide implants and IUDs. If you're truly interested, read the thread called, "low income babies" that I started awhile back.
> 
> You missed the hissy fit that Hobby Lobby threw over paying for certain types of birth control? The religious right want to control women's reproduction.


Have you changed the definition of "abortion clinic" to "clinic"
Because I know that the religous groups ar very good at helping clinics and they even have hospitals, lots of them.
The religious people are right to not want to fund abortion clinics. 
And there are other birth control methods besides implants and IUDs so that is not a reason to make us pay for abortion clinics.

Hobby Lobby
Have you change the definition of "not wanting to furnish free birth control or abortion" to "controlling women's reproduction"? 
Why all the phony code language?


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> Have you changed the definition of "abortion clinic" to "clinic"
> Because I know that the religous groups ar very good at helping clinics and they even have hospitals, lots of them.
> The religious people are right to not want to fund abortion clinics.
> And there are other birth control methods besides implants and IUDs so that is not a reason to make us pay for abortion clinics.
> 
> Hobby Lobby
> Have you change the definition of "not wanting to furnish free birth control or abortion" to "controlling women's reproduction"?
> Why all the phony code language?


Please read the threads where this has been discussed in detail. There are many.


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> What happens if there is sex without birth control? I don't have to explain it, do it?


Doesn't make sense?
If someone is too irresponsible to furnish their own birth control, and they choose to have sex and get pregnant. Then I have to pay for their abortion or pay for food for their children?
Why am I responsible?


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> Please read the threads where this has been discussed in detail. There are many.


I know the arguments well and many of the fallacies used.
Like changing the definition of words an phrases.


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> I know the arguments well and many of the fallacies used.
> Like changing the definition of words an phrases.


No code, no definition changes, reread my posts to you.


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> No code, no definition changes, reread my posts to you.


So when you say clinic you are not talking abortion clinic?


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> So when you say clinic you are not talking abortion clinic?


I plainly said women's health clinic, they may also do abortions or they may not, not all do.


----------



## Heritagefarm

OffGridCooker said:


> Doesn't make sense?
> If someone is too irresponsible to furnish their own birth control, and they choose to have sex and get pregnant. Then I have to pay for their abortion or pay for food for their children?
> Why am I responsible?


You have a point. Contraceptives are cheap, especially for males. Better yet, abstinence.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Would you rather pay for birth control or babies?






Irish Pixie said:


> Women that have been raped or victims of incest too? Birth control failure? Many types are not highly effective. Reality is a witch kitty.






OffGridCooker said:


> Why do I only have two choices?
> If I don't give someone free birth control I have to pay for their baby?






Irish Pixie said:


> What happens if there is sex without birth control? I don't have to explain it, do it?






OffGridCooker said:


> Doesn't make sense?
> If someone is too irresponsible to furnish their own birth control, and they choose to have sex and get pregnant. Then I have to pay for their abortion or pay for food for their children?
> Why am I responsible?



Because, from top to bottom, this is what's known as a "shake down".
A classic move by mobsters, politicians and those that work for them.
Study it, and learn to discern those who seek to control your life and your money.

Does anyone here really believe all those food stamps are going to rape and incest victims?
C'mon, I was born at night, but not last night.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> You have a point. Contraceptives are cheap, especially for males. Better yet, abstinence.


Condoms are slightly more effective than the withdrawal method. Condoms are for protection against STDs and should be used in conjunction with a higher effective contraceptive. 

Abstinence is not reality.


----------



## Txsteader

Heritagefarm said:


> You have a point. Contraceptives are cheap, especially for males. Better yet, abstinence.


Finally! Someone gets it.

:buds:


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> Doesn't make sense?
> If someone is too irresponsible to furnish their own birth control, and they choose to have sex and get pregnant. Then I have to pay for their abortion or pay for food for their children?
> Why am I responsible?


Because we are a first world country and don't let kids starve, basically. 

It's much cheaper to have effective, low cost birth control accessible to women, isn't it?


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Because, from top to bottom, this is what's known as a "shake down".
> A classic move by mobsters, politicians and those that work for them.
> Study it, and learn to discern those who seek to control your life and your money.
> 
> Does anyone here really believe all those food stamps are going to rape and incest victims?
> C'mon, I was born at night, but not last night.


Nice cherry picking. You are very good. :thumb:


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> I plainly said women's health clinic, they may also do abortions or they may not, not all do.


All clinics treat women's health issues, half the population is women.
When you say "women's health clinic" do you really mean abortion clinic?
And are you saying Religious people are trying to shut down health clinics that do not perform abortions?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Christians, basically. Can Texas be considered a religious group?  They shut down so many clinics that low income women have to drive for hours to get to clinics that provide implants and IUDs. If you're truly interested, read the thread called, "low income babies" that I started awhile back.
> 
> You missed the hissy fit that Hobby Lobby threw over paying for certain types of birth control? The religious right want to control women's reproduction.


Hmmm from your words in the NY gun control thread where you said if you don't live in NY it's not of your business, you don't live in Texas so.... back to FS if people are too helpless to prepare food maybe mandatory home economic classes would help, but of course it would only help those truly wanting to learn. Too many don't want to bother when it's easier not to try.


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> Because we are a first world country and don't let kids starve, basically.
> 
> It's much cheaper to have effective, low cost birth control accessible to women, isn't it?


We have effective low cost birth control? It is so cheep even the poorest can afford it.
We just need women to be responsible enough to take it!
And to answer your question.
If for some reason I became responsible for some irresponsible moocher, that refused to pay for their own birth control, and if I had to be responsible for this mooches child if she got pregnant, then I would rather pay for the moocher's birth control.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Women that have been raped or victims of incest too? Birth control failure? Many types are not highly effective. Reality is a witch kitty.


 How many of the people who get abortions are there because they are victims of rape and incest? I gamble that only 5% are. 

What about the best form of birth control, abstinence? 
You do not have to be religious to practice abstinence.
I am not religious and I chose to have long periods of abstinence as a form of birth control. I am as frisky as the rest of the human race but I just do not want the hassle of an unwanted kid with an unwanted woman just because I had to scratch and animal itch. 

It is hard to do but it works. Maybe people need to start keeping their pants on.


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> Nice cherry picking. You are very good. :thumb:





farmrbrown said:


> Because, from top to bottom, this is what's known as a "shake down".
> A classic move by mobsters, politicians and those that work for them.
> Study it, and learn to discern those who seek to control your life and your money.
> 
> Does anyone here really believe all those food stamps are going to rape and incest victims?
> C'mon, I was born at night, but not last night.


Most intellectually honest people know that the food stamp program is used as a vote buying scheme. Why else would you provide junk food?


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> How much is the Dr. app't to get the script? :facepalm:


 Aren't doc apt covered by Medicaid, yes. I am not sure if birth control is covered by Medicaid also.

I go to the clinic at the hospital and it runs on a sliding scale based on your income. The drawback is that you often get medical students. There is a dental and an eye clinic also. 

No one is turned away and you pay based on your income. If a person has no income and they have Medicaid then they still can see a doc. 

If you are homeless and live in a shelter you can apply for Medicaid if you are at the shelter long enough.


----------



## City Bound

Abstinence is reality if you make it reality. 

I have been practicing abstinence on and off for 25 years and it works for me. 
other people do it also and not because religious fears. They do it because it is a way to manage one's life, especially if they disagree with abortion as a form of casual birth control. it is a way to be responsible.


----------



## OffGridCooker

The whole food stamp issue will change soon.
Soon women will not only be given food stamps but a paycheck to have and raise children.
We are facing a population crash because having and raising children is a lot of pain and work.
With modern birth control women have a choice and it may take more than food stamps to encourage women and families to have children. 
20 years from now the arguments will be, "how much people will be paid" to have and raise children.
I predict that it will be enough that that is all you need to do.


----------



## City Bound

Pixie you never addressed my question about you experience as a mother. Have you ever had to set boundaries and discipline your kids for the sake of keeping them in line with growing responsible and proper people?

Have you ever had to make sure they cleaned their rooms, shut the door when they come in, whip their muddy feet at the door, bring their plate in and scrape them into the garbage can? Have you ever had to stop them from playing with matches? Have you ever had to tell them to mind the hot stove when you were cooking?


----------



## Wanda

OffGridCooker said:


> Most intellectually honest people know that the food stamp program is used as a vote buying scheme. Why else would you provide junk food?




My guess is the retailers are the ones that have the legislative clout to get the junk foods included. You do realise the businesses that accept these cards will fight tooth and nail to keep that income heading there way.


----------



## po boy

Wanda said:


> My guess is the retailers are the ones that have the legislative clout to get the junk foods included. You do realise the businesses that accept these cards will fight tooth and nail to keep that income heading there way.


Wouldn't the folks still shop at those retailers and spend all their monthly allotment???


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Condoms are slightly more effective than the withdrawal method. Condoms are for protection against STDs and should be used in conjunction with a higher effective contraceptive.
> 
> Abstinence is not reality.


Not reality? Who's reality? That is ridiculous. This right here...this level of irresponsibility is it.


----------



## City Bound

I think the junk food aspect of the story is more of a civil liberties story. Can you really tell people what to eat. I would guess it bring lawsuits. 

I do not have a problem with people on stamps buying a few snacks as a treat now and then. You can buy cheap snacks like little Debby snacks for $2 a box and they last a long time if rationed. 

I have a problem with people blowing their whole budget on junk food and not buying enough real food. That is just reckless.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Hmmm from your words in the NY gun control thread where you said if you don't live in NY it's not of your business, you don't live in Texas so.... back to FS if people are too helpless to prepare food maybe mandatory home economic classes would help, but of course it would only help those truly wanting to learn. Too many don't want to bother when it's easier not to try.


Point taken. I happen to find people more important than guns, your mileage may vary. What Texas has done to poor woman should be actionable, but a few years of paying for lots of babies may take care of that on it's own.

The ugliness on this thread appalls me. I know shouldn't be surprised anymore, but I am. All the outwardly kind and concerned people will toddle off tomorrow morning and pat themselves on the back and say they are good people, when really, they aren't at all. They begrudge the food in a poor kid's mouth. If that isn't ugly I don't what is...


----------



## arabian knight

City Bound said:


> I think the junk food aspect of the story is more of a civil liberties story. Can you really tell people what to eat. I would guess it bring lawsuits.
> 
> I do not have a problem with people on stamps buying a few snacks as a treat now and then. You can buy cheap snacks like little Debby snacks for $2 a box and they last a long time if rationed.
> 
> I have a problem with people blowing their whole budget on junk food and not buying enough real food. That is just reckless.


It very easy for ANY store to stop putting junk foods on these cards.
They HAVE to enter and select such items each time a shipment comes in just WHAT foods go into the computer for those that use FS. 
All they have to do is Not into the data in the computer when it comes to chips soda pop, Lobster and such. easy peasy.


----------



## Wanda

po boy said:


> Wouldn't the folks still shop at those retailers and spend all their monthly allotment???


 I would guess that the gas station convenience store types would be at a severe disadvantage. For a lot of them the gas sales only provide a reason to get you to stop. The profit is in the snacks and other non fuel items.


----------



## wr

City Bound said:


> Abstinence is reality if you make it reality.
> 
> I have been practicing abstinence on and off for 25 years and it works for me.
> other people do it also and not because religious fears. They do it because it is a way to manage one's life, especially if they disagree with abortion as a form of casual birth control. it is a way to be responsible.



Obviously, abstinence is effective but do you feel abstinence is a realistic expectation for a married couple or someone in a long term relationship?

I agree the welfare system needs to find ways to shift from a livelihood to a leg up but I feel it goes beyond a single simplistic answer.


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> We have effective low cost birth control? It is so cheep even the poorest can afford it.
> We just need women to be responsible enough to take it!
> And to answer your question.
> If for some reason I became responsible for some irresponsible moocher, that refused to pay for their own birth control, and if I had to be responsible for this mooches child if she got pregnant, then I would rather pay for the moocher's birth control.


Last post. Yes, there is low cost effective birth control but it has to be where low income women can get it. Most don't own cars, can't afford taxis, and public transportation doesn't go everywhere. With states defunding clinics the woman have to go farther for something that used to be in their neighborhood. If they can't get to a clinic for effective birth control they are forced to less effective birth control. What can happen when less effective birth control is used? Pregnancy! 18 out of every 100 women will become pregnant using a condom alone. So she is now pregnant (while using birth control), she either aborts or carries to term (her choice). She was responsible, she used birth control, but it wasn't effective. Is she still a "mooch"? Think about that before you jump to conclusions and judge another human being.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Aren't doc apt covered by Medicaid, yes. I am not sure if birth control is covered by Medicaid also.
> 
> I go to the clinic at the hospital and it runs on a sliding scale based on your income. The drawback is that you often get medical students. There is a dental and an eye clinic also.
> 
> No one is turned away and you pay based on your income. If a person has no income and they have Medicaid then they still can see a doc.
> 
> If you are homeless and live in a shelter you can apply for Medicaid if you are at the shelter long enough.


Got links to show what you're saying is applicable nationwide? I'd love to read them.


----------



## City Bound

arabian knight said:


> It very easy for ANY store to stop putting junk foods on these cards.
> They HAVE to enter and select such items each time a shipment comes in just WHAT foods go into the computer for those that use FS.
> All they have to do is Not into the data in the computer when it comes to chips soda pop, Lobster and such. easy peasy.


 
I know, but since the genie has been let out of the bottle getting the genie back in would not happen without a fight. A lot of civil liberties groups would sue claiming discrimination.

If someone on stamps saved a portion of their stamps all year long to buy candy for their kids stockings and lobsters and mussels for Christmas dinner how could I begrudge them that small token of normalcy at a special time of year. If someone wants to buy their kid a cake for their birthday I do not think that is so wrong. I would consider those good choices.


----------



## Irish Pixie

wr said:


> Obviously, abstinence is effective but do you feel abstinence is a realistic expectation for a married couple or someone in a long term relationship?
> 
> I agree the welfare system needs to find ways to shift from a livelihood to a leg up but I feel it goes beyond a single simplistic answer.


Of course! People in relationships share a bed without sex all the time! It's why they get married in the first place.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Point taken. I happen to find people more important than guns, your mileage may vary. What Texas has done to poor woman should be actionable, but a few years of paying for lots of babies may take care of that on it's own.
> 
> The ugliness on this thread appalls me. I know shouldn't be surprised anymore, but I am. All the outwardly kind and concerned people will toddle off tomorrow morning and pat themselves on the back and say they are good people, when really, they aren't at all. They begrudge the food in a poor kid's mouth. If that isn't ugly I don't what is...


Really incredible...maybe you should think about spreading the word among your female specie of how pregnancy happens and by not having sex about 25% of the month prevents that instead of free for all sex and abortion is there for you when they are too stupid to keep their pants on. Nothing ugly here but truth.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Really incredible...maybe you should think about spreading the word among your female specie of how pregnancy happens and by not having sex about 25% of the month prevents that instead of free for all sex and abortion is there for you when they are too stupid to keep their pants on. Nothing ugly here but truth.


24 out of a 100 women will get pregnant using your method. That's fact, not opinion. The only thing that's worse is spermicide alone. Are those woman too stupid to keep their pants on too?

ETA: You realize that it takes a male to get her pregnant, right? Is he too stupid to keep his pants on as well?


----------



## OffGridCooker

Irish Pixie said:


> Point taken. I happen to find people more important than guns, your mileage may vary. What Texas has done to poor woman should be actionable, but a few years of paying for lots of babies may take care of that on it's own.
> 
> The ugliness on this thread appalls me. I know shouldn't be surprised anymore, but I am. All the outwardly kind and concerned people will toddle off tomorrow morning and pat themselves on the back and say they are good people, when really, they aren't at all. They begrudge the food in a poor kid's mouth. If that isn't ugly I don't what is...


What appalls me are the "good hearted" people the give away other people's money while falsly elevating themselves to a higher moral plain as if they actually were the ones pulling the wagon. 
And it is sad that you would accuse good people of begrudging the food in a poor kids mouth.


----------



## coolrunnin

Wanda said:


> My guess is the retailers are the ones that have the legislative clout to get the junk foods included. You do realise the businesses that accept these cards will fight tooth and nail to keep that income heading there way.


More likely manufacturer's they worked to institute food stamps over commodities in the first place.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> 24 out of a 100 women will get pregnant using your method. That's fact, not opinion. The only thing that's worse is spermicide alone. Are those woman too stupid to keep their pants on too?
> 
> ETA: You realize that it takes a male to get her pregnant, right? Is he too stupid to keep his pants on as well?


Yes he is to if he knows. 24 out of 100 will get pregnant having sex at any time...not in the time frame when they should not have sex. Responsibility. Again...a responsible lifestyle is many facets.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Yes he is to if he knows. 24 out of 100 will get pregnant having sex at any time...not in the time frame when they should not have sex. Responsibility. Again...a responsible lifestyle is many facets.


Nope. Fact doesn't prove your assertion. There are many many forms of birth control more effective than avoiding days of ovulation. Your method is next to last in effectiveness.

Well, shouldn't he know? Without him she doesn't get pregnant, right?


----------



## OffGridCooker

coolrunnin said:


> More likely manufacturer's they worked to institute food stamps over commodities in the first place.


I am old enough to remember when the government gave aways were called commodities, that is before food stamps. A lot of cheese if I remember.
I remember my parents talking about it, and even though we were poor we were too proud to accept charity!
Boy have things changed, not not only is there no shame in accepting charity, the progressives, have elivated the poor to a higher moral state. Poverty now elivates ones character.
So Now If you are poor you are automatically a good person, that is just a victim, and you should mooch off of your fellow citizens.


----------



## arabian knight

City Bound said:


> I know, but since the genie has been let out of the bottle getting the genie back in would not happen without a fight. A lot of civil liberties groups would sue claiming discrimination.
> 
> If someone on stamps saved a portion of their stamps all year long to buy candy for their kids stockings and lobsters and mussels for Christmas dinner how could I begrudge them that small token of normalcy at a special time of year. If someone wants to buy their kid a cake for their birthday I do not think that is so wrong. I would consider those good choices.


Well it is that way in wi no buying lobster on FS and the aclu and go fly a kite and pound sand.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. Fact doesn't prove your assertion. There are many many forms of birth control more effective than avoiding days of ovulation. Your method is next to last in effectiveness.
> 
> Well, shouldn't he know? Without him she doesn't get pregnant, right?


Nope...sorry. Responsible people don't behave that way.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Nope...sorry. Responsible people don't behave that way.


Sorry? I don't understand. In what way don't responsible people behave?


----------



## oneraddad

Irish Pixie said:


> 24 out of a 100 women will get pregnant using your method. That's fact, not opinion. The only thing that's worse is spermicide alone. Are those woman too stupid to keep their pants on too?
> 
> ETA: You realize that it takes a male to get her pregnant, right? Is he too stupid to keep his pants on as well?



Her body, her problem. That's the law


----------



## coolrunnin

OffGridCooker said:


> I am old enough to remember when the government gave aways were called commodities, that is before food stamps. A lot of cheese if I remember.
> I remember my parents talking about it, and even though we were poor we were too proud to accept charity!
> Boy have things changed, not not only is there no shame in accepting charity, the progressives, have elivated the poor to a higher moral state. Poverty now elivates ones character.
> So Now If you are poor you are automatically a good person, that is just a victim, and you should mooch off of your fellow citizens.


I well remember the cheese, dad had a liquor store in town for awhile and used to trade a guy beer for that cheese, that was some of the best cheese I have ever eaten.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Condoms are slightly more effective than the withdrawal method. Condoms are for protection against STDs and should be used in conjunction with a higher effective contraceptive.
> 
> Abstinence is not reality.


Maybe not, but it is the most sure fire of any of them!


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Last post. Yes, there is low cost effective birth control but it has to be where low income women can get it. Most don't own cars, can't afford taxis, and public transportation doesn't go everywhere. With states defunding clinics the woman have to go farther for something that used to be in their neighborhood. If they can't get to a clinic for effective birth control they are forced to less effective birth control. What can happen when less effective birth control is used? Pregnancy! 18 out of every 100 women will become pregnant using a condom alone. So she is now pregnant (while using birth control), she either aborts or carries to term (her choice). She was responsible, she used birth control, but it wasn't effective. Is she still a "mooch"? Think about that before you jump to conclusions and judge another human being.


Why did she have sex in the first place? There is no other reason for copulation than reproduction. The biological mechanisms for reproduction are, however, extremely powerful. They drive everyone. So, it is not realistic to expect everyone to have perfect self-control. Is it?


----------



## City Bound

wr said:


> Obviously, abstinence is effective but do you feel abstinence is a realistic expectation for a married couple or someone in a long term relationship?
> 
> I agree the welfare system needs to find ways to shift from a livelihood to a leg up but I feel it goes beyond a single simplistic answer.



I just know what has worked for me. Yes, couples practice periods of abstinence and sexual restraint. Couples need to manage their sex drive and practice safe sex. Some couples budget their sex lives. If you can only afford 10 condoms in a month, well guess what, that is how many times you are going to have sex that month like it or not. 
Couples do not always have to have sex to enjoy their connection and to be romantic. 

Even married people have to avoid taking risks. Like was mentioned earlier by someone else. At the times of the month when a woman is at the peak of her fertility you have to be extra careful. 

Also, couples need to budget birth control into their monthly budget and do so in by list of priority. Buying good condoms or birth control pills
is on the list before cable tv, fancy phone, fancy shoes, expensive power tools that may never get used, and other things. 
If you can not afford both cable tv and condoms for the month, well condoms come first so dump your cable. If you have to wear seconds hand clothes so that the money saved can be used to afford birth control then do that.

It is about choices.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Why did she have sex in the first place? There is no other reason for copulation than reproduction. The biological mechanisms for reproduction are, however, extremely powerful. They drive everyone. So, it is not realistic to expect everyone to have perfect self-control. Is it?


I imagine she had sex cuz it's just plain fun.  And she used birth control but the only form she could get wasn't very effective. She was responsible. I just want to know if she's still a "mooch".


----------



## OffGridCooker

If you are single mother and been denied birth control, because no one would give it to you for free, and you are on food stamps, and your child is hungry you may need a rice cook book.
50 lb of rice is $15.29 at SAMs club.
Feed the children especially your own!


----------



## Elevenpoint

OffGridCooker said:


> I am old enough to remember when the government gave aways were called commodities, that is before food stamps. A lot of cheese if I remember.
> I remember my parents talking about it, and even though we were poor we were too proud to accept charity!
> Boy have things changed, not not only is there no shame in accepting charity, the progressives, have elivated the poor to a higher moral state. Poverty now elivates ones character.
> So Now If you are poor you are automatically a good person, that is just a victim, and you should mooch off of your fellow citizens.


Where I am...disability..fs...Medicare...is the great American dream. No interest in anything once that is achieved.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Maybe not, but it is the most sure fire of any of them!


It's effective until it's not, just ask Bristol Palin. Abstinence failed her twice.


----------



## Txsteader

wr said:


> Obviously, abstinence is effective but do you feel abstinence is a realistic expectation for a married couple or someone in a long term relationship?
> 
> I agree the welfare system needs to find ways to shift from a livelihood to a leg up but I feel it goes beyond a single simplistic answer.


It's *an* answer, one of many possible solutions that a woman can choose from.

The way some are portraying it, pregnancy prevention is utterly impossible.

:facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

The fact is that birth control isn't perfect. I thought people knew that.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Got links to show what you're saying is applicable nationwide? I'd love to read them.


 
Right there is the problem. People think we need to come up with a one size solution for all people and such a thing does not exist. When you try to federalize every aspect of life it just does not work. States and local communities are better at solving their own problems. 

If it is not applicable nation wide does that discredit that it actually works on a small scale and is getting the job done?


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> C'mon. She specifically said, "cable and iphone insecure". Is your MIL on welfare?


SS, Medicare and 12 bucks food stamps whether she needs that food or not.


----------



## haley1

arabian knight said:


> Well at least in WI this is a good start.
> 
> They now require that not less than 67 percent of the SNAP benefits used by a recipient in a month be used to purchase any of the following foods: foods that are on the list of foods authorized for the federal special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC foods); beef; pork; chicken; fish; fresh produce; and fresh, frozen, and canned white potatoes.* In addition, prohibit using SNAP benefits for the purchase of crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other shellfish.â*


I was talking to the speaker of the assembly today (our sons play on the same basketball and football teams) and he said since we reformed our state this year we have already dropped 15,000 off snap and welfare but they are already finding loop holes


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Right there is the problem. People think we need to come up with a one size solution for all people and such a thing does not exist. When you try to federalize every aspect of life it just does not work. States and local communities are better at solving their own problems.
> 
> If it is not applicable nation wide does that discredit that it actually works on a small scale and is getting the job done?


This is what you said:


City Bound said:


> Aren't doc apt covered by Medicaid, yes. I am not sure if birth control is covered by Medicaid also.
> 
> I go to the clinic at the hospital and it runs on a sliding scale based on your income. The drawback is that you often get medical students. There is a dental and an eye clinic also.
> 
> No one is turned away and you pay based on your income. If a person has no income and they have Medicaid then they still can see a doc.
> 
> If you are homeless and live in a shelter you can apply for Medicaid if you are at the shelter long enough.


You are stating it as fact, not opinion, not small scale but everywhere. Since it's fact, there should be a link. If it's your opinion, well opinions are like bellybuttons and everybody has one.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> The fact is that birth control isn't perfect. I thought people knew that.


Not applicable. Called dropping their pants.


----------



## coolrunnin

I don't understand people's dislike of birth control myself, but I think planned parenthood has done such a crappy job marketing itself it needs to be revamped.
I don't even have a real opinion of abortion I just don't feel it's my call to make.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. How do you do it without having hungry kids?


I an fix it in two weeks time with about ten good programmers. That part of it anyway. If you can keep all the ones on the take from the program off my back for two weeks.


No hungry kids either. Or adults.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Not applicable. Called dropping their pants.


Yer a hoot.


----------



## City Bound

coolrunnin said:


> I well remember the cheese, dad had a liquor store in town for awhile and used to trade a guy beer for that cheese, that was some of the best cheese I have ever eaten.


 
That is amusing. Even back then people were scamming. 
I recall the cheese and I recall the massive metal cans of peanut butter. The food they gave out reminded me of the packed food the army uses. 

I guess scamming is just part of the economy because scamming is a vital part of the economic flow.


----------



## AmericanStand

The best birth control is only 99% effective. 
If you do the math that still works out to one new kid every 8 years.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Point taken. I happen to find people more important than guns, your mileage may vary. What Texas has done to poor woman should be actionable, but a few years of paying for lots of babies may take care of that on it's own.
> 
> The ugliness on this thread appalls me. I know shouldn't be surprised anymore, but I am. All the outwardly kind and concerned people will toddle off tomorrow morning and pat themselves on the back and say they are good people, when really, they aren't at all. They begrudge the food in a poor kid's mouth. If that isn't ugly I don't what is...


I really doubt anyone in here begrudges any child food, I know I don't. What I do have a problem with is people who won't try to help themselves. If someone is doing their best and still needing help I'm all for it. If someone is just waiting for a handout without lifting a finger for themselves it's a different story. Seems like that is the consensus of many who have posted in this thread. As for people here " toddling off' well, I have no idea what good works for others they do or don't do in real life and neither do you.


----------



## AmericanStand

Heritagefarm said:


> Why did she have sex in the first place? There is no other reason for copulation than reproduction.........



LOL really ? What a sad sad life that would be.


----------



## coolrunnin

City Bound said:


> That is amusing. Even back then people were scamming.
> I recall the cheese and I recall the massive metal cans of peanut butter. The food they gave out reminded me of the packed food the army uses.
> 
> I guess scamming is just part of the economy because scamming is a vital part of the economic flow.


People seem to have a fantasy belief that people were better in the past, history doesn't agree with these perception's.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mreynolds said:


> I an fix it in two weeks time with about ten good programmers. That part of it anyway. If you can keep all the ones on the take from the program off my back for two weeks.
> 
> 
> No hungry kids either. Or adults.


Yep...you bet. Would be pretty simple too.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> This is what you said:
> 
> You are stating it as fact, not opinion, not small scale but everywhere. Since it's fact, there should be a link. If it's your opinion, well opinions are like bellybuttons and everybody has one.



It is a fact for me and thousands of other people. I actually do walk into the dental clinic and pay a reasonable fee to have my teeth taken care of. 
I go see the doctor and he or she checks me out. It is sliding scale. That is a fact.

Did I say this was a fact everywhere? I don't think so. I said that the clinic I go to does not turn people away. They even work out payment plans if you need one.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> It is a fact for me and thousands of other people. I actually do walk into the dental clinic and pay a reasonable fee to have my teeth taken care of.
> I go see the doctor and he or she checks me out. It is sliding scale. That is a fact.


For you. That's not what you said in the original post.


----------



## haley1

Irish Pixie said:


> Condoms are slightly more effective than the withdrawal method. Condoms are for protection against STDs and should be used in conjunction with a higher effective contraceptive.
> 
> Abstinence is not reality.


According to the CDC, when used consistently and correctly, latex condoms are "highly effective" in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV and many other STDs. Condoms are also 98 percent effective in preventing pregnancy when used correctly, every time.


----------



## Elevenpoint

haley1 said:


> I was talking to the speaker of the assembly today (our sons play on the same basketball and football teams) and he said since we reformed our state this year we have already dropped 15,000 off snap and welfare but they are already finding loop holes


Once the milk shop has been set up....there is always a way to get milk.


----------



## Irish Pixie

haley1 said:


> According to the CDC, when used consistently and correctly, latex condoms are "highly effective" in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV and many other STDs. Condoms are also 98 percent effective in preventing pregnancy when used correctly, every time.


18 women out of a 100 will get pregnant using condoms alone. I said when used to in conjunction with an effective form of birth control to prevent STDs. 

Hold up. You don't believe any else the government says but you'll trot out a CDC stat as proof?


----------



## City Bound

coolrunnin said:


> People seem to have a fantasy belief that people were better in the past, history doesn't agree with these perception's.



I know. Nothing new under the sun, as they say. Once these things become commodities to trade the that is what people do with them. They become currency.


In ancient rome people use to find loop holes in the laws to beat paying some taxes. Some people use to dry lay their stone houses because if they used mortar they would have to pay heavier taxes on their home. Same thing this day where in some states if your house is not fixed to a foundation you pay less taxes.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> For you. That's not what you said in the original post.


 
Is it not? I said that I go to a clinic with thousand of other people who get treated on a sliding scale based on income. People who have no income and who are on Medicaid are seen also. 

If this works for us couldn't other communities try to do it also?


----------



## City Bound

haley1 said:


> According to the CDC, when used consistently and correctly, latex condoms are "highly effective" in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV and many other STDs. Condoms are also 98 percent effective in preventing pregnancy when used correctly, every time.



Right, and if you try to avoid taking any risk when a woman is her most fertile each month then condoms do an even better job. 

Also, avoiding cheap condoms is a smart way to go. The better the condom the better your chances.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> The ugliness on this thread appalls me. I know shouldn't be surprised anymore, but I am. All the outwardly kind and concerned people will toddle off tomorrow morning and pat themselves on the back and say they are good people, when really, they aren't at all. They begrudge the food in a poor kid's mouth. If that isn't ugly I don't what is...


Is that how this thread started, to encourage more charitable giving to poor children?
I seem to remember something about a chart, and racial breakdowns..........


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> The ugliness on this thread appalls me. I know shouldn't be surprised anymore, but I am. All the outwardly kind and concerned people will toddle off tomorrow morning and pat themselves on the back and say they are good people, when really, they aren't at all. They begrudge the food in a poor kid's mouth. If that isn't ugly I don't what is...


And while you condemn others for their supposed lack of compassion, you advocate abortion.

It boggles the mind.


----------



## haley1

Irish Pixie said:


> 18 women out of a 100 will get pregnant using condoms alone. I said when used to in conjunction with an effective form of birth control to prevent STDs.
> 
> Hold up. You don't believe any else the government says but you'll trot out a CDC stat as proof?


I have to ask. Do you just sit in front of the computer all day on this forum just trolling for people to argue with you?


----------



## OffGridCooker

coolrunnin said:


> I don't understand people's dislike of birth control myself, but I think planned parenthood has done such a crappy job marketing itself it needs to be revamped.
> I don't even have a real opinion of abortion I just don't feel it's my call to make.


The progressive propagandist have change the definition of "not wanting to provide free abortion" to "dislike of birth control". 
No one, dislikes birth control, except maybe Catholics and even they are changing their position.
Dont fall for progressive dishonesty. They will say anything to gain power and control over the people.
Planned Parenthood has done a great job marketing them selves, They are so good they have even changed the definition of abortion to "women's health care"


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Yer a hoot.


You too.:bash:


----------



## City Bound

pixie I have asked you twice about setting boundaries and making rules when raising your kids. I think you have conveniently avoided answering because you know that you did have to establish boundaries and rules in order to raise your kids properly and keep a peaceful home. 

The great big family of America needs to have boundaries and rules also. Parents usually do not neglect and enable their children's bad habits so why should Americans sit back and enable our beloved fellow citizens.


----------



## OffGridCooker

haley1 said:


> I have to ask. Do you just sit in front of the computer all day on this forum just trolling for people to argue with you?


No offenceve but I would not say trolling, Irish Pixie is arguing reasonable opinions, in a respectful way. She just has a lot of energy and has a lot to say and is a very nice liberal to argue with. Not a troll in my opinion, but a positive influence on this forum.
And she has thick skin!


----------



## mnn2501

wr said:


> Obviously, abstinence is effective but do you feel abstinence is a realistic expectation for a married couple or someone in a long term relationship?


Yes, it works and is do-able, even for married couples.


----------



## wr

mnn2501 said:


> Yes, it works and is do-able, even for married couples.


It may but but parties have to be in agreement. I've worked with quite a few men who claim their wives are practicing abstinence until they find out there's a girlfriend who isn't.


----------



## City Bound

wr said:


> It may but but parties have to be in agreement. I've worked with quite a few men who claim their wives are practicing abstinence until they find out there's a girlfriend who isn't.


 Couples have to be in agreement on all the major aspect of life. That is what courting is for, you find out if you have similar beliefs and temperaments. Similar natures when it comes to passion.


----------



## wr

City Bound said:


> Couples have to be in agreement on all the major aspect of life. That is what courting is for, you find out if you have similar beliefs and temperaments. Similar natures when it comes to passion.


That's right but relationships are also built on some form of intimacy and it seems to me that someone outside the relationship has no right to suggest the practice abstinence and there's a strong chance that it's just not a viable solution. 

A past employee walked out on a 25 year marriage because one of them felt abstinence was the best solution to birth control. 

It's certainly her right to feel that way but unfortunately, after 15 years of abstinence, he husband seems to find the town's divorcee to be a refreshing change and they fit right into the topic we're discussing. 

Together, they manage to scrape enough to get by but I promise you, his job won't cover much child support and there's not enough income to cover alimony so the rest of us are going to end up supporting her and the kids.


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> It's effective until it's not, just ask Bristol Palin. Abstinence failed her twice.


Cheap shot! Do you really think Bristol will use SNAP or WIC to feed her children?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> And while you condemn others for their supposed lack of compassion, you advocate abortion.
> 
> It boggles the mind.


I have never advocated for abortion, not once, not ever. I only care that a woman has a _choice_, I don't care if that choice is abortion or carrying the pregnancy to term. 

You know this implicitly and chose to lie, why is that?


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> Cheap shot! Do you really think Bristol will use SNAP or WIC to feed her children?


Bristol Palin was the "ambassador of abstinence" until she got pregnant twice. You many not like but it happened, twice. Abstinence is only works until it doesn't. 

I never said she'd be on food stamps, never even implied it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

OffGridCooker said:


> No offenceve but I would not say trolling, Irish Pixie is arguing reasonable opinions, in a respectful way. She just has a lot of energy and has a lot to say and is a very nice liberal to argue with. Not a troll in my opinion, but a positive influence on this forum.
> And she has thick skin!


Thank you, I appreciate your kind words.


----------



## Irish Pixie

wr said:


> That's right but relationships are also built on some form of intimacy and it seems to me that someone outside the relationship has no right to suggest the practice abstinence and there's a strong chance that it's just not a viable solution.
> 
> A past employee walked out on a 25 year marriage because one of them felt abstinence was the best solution to birth control.
> 
> It's certainly her right to feel that way but unfortunately, after 15 years of abstinence, he husband seems to find the town's divorcee to be a refreshing change and they fit right into the topic we're discussing.
> 
> Together, they manage to scrape enough to get by but I promise you, his job won't cover much child support and there's not enough income to cover alimony so the rest of us are going to end up supporting her and the kids.


I agree.

Short and simple, a relationship without intimacy is a roommate. To me, that would be a shallow and totally unsatisfying (no pun intended) life. No thanks. That's coming from someone married to the same man for 34 years.


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> It's effective until it's not, just ask Bristol Palin. Abstinence failed her twice.


No, she failed to *abstain*.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> pixie I have asked you twice about setting boundaries and making rules when raising your kids. I think you have conveniently avoided answering because you know that you did have to establish boundaries and rules in order to raise your kids properly and keep a peaceful home.
> 
> The great big family of America needs to have boundaries and rules also. Parents usually do not neglect and enable their children's bad habits so why should Americans sit back and enable our beloved fellow citizens.


And I have ignored you twice. Do you now understand I'm under no obligation to answer your questions? Nor you mine.


----------



## Irish Pixie

po boy said:


> No, she failed to *abstain*.


What's the difference? Bristol Palin got pregnant twice while using abstinence as birth control. Isn't *not* getting pregnant the goal?


----------



## Tricky Grama

MO_cows said:


> The name matters because it defines the intention of the program. If the program only went to kids that were truly "hungry", it would be a fraction of its current size.
> 
> Cereal was just one example. _"*WIC* foods include infant cereal, iron-fortified adult cereal, vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice, eggs, milk, cheese, peanut butter, dried and canned beans/peas, and canned fish." _Now why wouldn't those food products let a kid grow up strong and healthy? Previous generations of Americans did on a lot less.
> 
> It is easy to get hysterical about "hungry kids" but the cold hard truth is, the programs are bloated and also widely abused and could be trimmed a great deal without any harm to any child.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MO_cows said:


> You are selling people short. Just because one grew up on microwave dinners, doesn't mean they are ignorant that the skill of cooking exists. There are cooking shows on public tv, the library is full of cookbooks as well as having internet access with probably millions of videos of how to make this or that, and there is a bus that goes there. If a person has the slightest bit of interest in improving their lot in life, even if it is just to eat better, or feed their kids better, or stretch their food dollars farther, it can be done.
> 
> When the Hy Vee chef does his cooking demonstration of the fancy dish they want to sell you the ingredients for, what does he use? A hot plate.


WIC has classes & I'm pretty sure recipients have to attend.


----------



## Tricky Grama

City Bound said:


> I know many inner city teachers who do their job well. The one problem they say over and over with black students is that the parents have no interest in being involved in their child's education. They will send their kid to school in brand new $150 sneakers but with no pencils and note books. The problem is so prevalent that the teachers I know who teach in all black schools took to simply buying school supplies for the children from their own pocket because they were tired of fighting with parents to buy the materials that their child was required to come to school with. The kids came in expensive sneakers and clothes but with no school supplies. Te families had the money but not the priority to spend it on what was really important.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the day award.


You realize that's annoying, right?


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree.
> 
> Short and simple, a relationship without intimacy is a roommate. To me, that would be a shallow and totally unsatisfying (no pun intended) life. No thanks. That's coming from someone married to the same man for 34 years.


You have no clue what works for others.


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> What's the difference? Bristol Palin got pregnant twice while *using abstinence as birth control*. Isn't *not* getting pregnant the goal?


 Well she either stopped abstaining and failed to tell the media or it's like that thing that happened a couple thousand years ago.


----------



## dixiegal62

I would guess there are marriages that for illnesses, accidents or otherwise are not of a sexual nature anymore. Abstinence may not always be about birth control.


----------



## Irish Pixie

po boy said:


> Well she either stopped abstaining and failed to tell the media or it's like that thing that happened a couple thousand years ago.


Since she was the "ambassador of abstinence" and it is to be assumed she knew *how* it worked, how effective is abstinence as birth control? 

Apparently Bristol Palin "fell off the abstinence wagon" correct?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Since she was the "ambassador of abstinence" and it is to be assumed she knew *how* it worked, how effective is abstinence as birth control?
> 
> Apparently Bristol Palin "fell off the abstinence wagon" correct?


Guess she changed her mind. I think we all change our minds from time to time. Would it have been better if she had made a public announcement before hand?


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I would guess there are marriages that for illnesses, accidents or otherwise are not of a sexual nature anymore. Abstinence may not always be about birth control.


Sorry, I assumed that everyone would understand that abstinence due to medical reasons would be an exception. Should the obvious be prefaced now?


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Guess she changed her mind. I think we all change our minds from time to time. Would it have been better if she had made a public announcement before hand?


I think it would be better if she (and other abstinence onlys) weren't raving hypocrites, but that's just me.


----------



## DryHeat

Just glancing at this thread for the first time. Looking at the first pages before things went into more general race/poverty issue debating, as far as I can tell, I'm rather surprised nobody commented on one thing, especially considering there were a couple of comparisons to the numbers from other sorts of demographic breakdowns: the listed initial numbers *only add up to 80%*! Reading the Huff Post article, there's the addendum that 13.5% are "race unknown" or "mixed race," then a further comment that 7% had no "adult head of household" so weren't allocated either. Truly, that makes any sensible comparison and/or debate pretty difficult. If you allocate that missing 20% proportionately the numbers might be 50.5% white, 32% black, 12.5% Hispanic... but what if many of those NOT declaring themselves as "white" were "mixed race" and functionally in effect "red-lined" as Afro and/or Hispanic? Then you might have a breakdown more like, oh, 42% white, 40% Afro, 14% Hispanic with 4% scattered among Asian and NA. And if everybody being UN-labelled were in fact white, you could have 60% white, 26% Afro, 11% Hispanic.

I don't see how anything sensible at all can be debated starting from numbers that fuzzy, especially contrasted to studies that *have* been adjusted to add up to 100%, or based on data collected precisely enough to do so.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> I think it would be better if she (and other abstinence onlys) weren't raving hypocrites, but that's just me.


Never changed your mind about anything IP?


----------



## Irish Pixie

DryHeat said:


> Just glancing at this thread for the first time. Looking at the first pages before things went into more general race/poverty issue debating, as far as I can tell, I'm rather surprised nobody commented on one thing, especially considering there were a couple of comparisons to the numbers from other sorts of demographic breakdowns: the listed initial numbers *only add up to 80%*! Reading the Huff Post article, there's the addendum that 13.5% are "race unknown" or "mixed race," then a further comment that 7% had no "adult head of household" so weren't allocated either. Truly, that makes any sensible comparison and/or debate pretty difficult. If you allocate that missing 20% proportionately the numbers might be 50.5% white, 32% black, 12.5% Hispanic... but what if many of those NOT declaring themselves as "white" were "mixed race" and functionally in effect "red-lined" as Afro and/or Hispanic? Then you might have a breakdown more like, oh, 42% white, 40% Afro, 14% Hispanic with 4% scattered among Asian and NA. And if everybody being UN-labelled were in fact white, you could have 60% white, 26% Afro, 11% Hispanic.
> 
> I don't see how anything sensible at all can be debated starting from numbers that fuzzy, especially contrasted to studies that *have* been adjusted to add up to 100%, or based on data collected precisely enough to do so.


I don't know how you'd get a more true breakdown of race, do you? The only way you know is to ask that person. Correct?


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> Bristol Palin was the "ambassador of abstinence" until she got pregnant twice. You many not like but it happened, twice. Abstinence is only works until it doesn't.
> 
> I never said she'd be on food stamps, never even implied it.


Within your own context that if the taxpayers don't pay for birth control, we have to pay for children, Bristol is a non-issue. That's what makes it a cheap shot.

Maybe I need to get out more, but how was she the ambassador for abstinence? Did she go around giving speeches on it or something?


----------



## DryHeat

> I don't know how you'd get a more true breakdown of race, do you?


True, but there were comparisons being made to other sets of data that DID add to 100% so have everything allocated. Just assigning proportionately would likely be close, imo, but could be argued against. So in effect, why not just start off asking what do you think about races and welfare and entitlements, etc, and not bother quoting such fuzzy data at all?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> You realize that's annoying, right?


Post of the Century Award!


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> And I have ignored you twice. Do you now understand I'm under no obligation to answer your questions? Nor you mine.


I noticed that too, and many times on other threads.
Now, what was that word you were using a few posts ago?.......

Oh yeah, it begins with an "h".


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> Within your own context that if the taxpayers don't pay for birth control, we have to pay for children, Bristol is a non-issue. That's what makes it a cheap shot.
> 
> Maybe I need to get out more, but how was she the ambassador for abstinence? *Did she go around giving speeches on it or something?*


Yes, she did. Made decent money at it too. Which is why she is a hypocrite.

I don't care if Bristol Palin has a quiverful of kids, I was simply pointing out that abstinence only works until it doesn't.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> I have never advocated for abortion, not once, not ever. I only care that a woman has a _choice_, I don't care if that choice is abortion or carrying the pregnancy to term.
> 
> You know this implicitly and chose to lie, why is that?


Wow, that statement may be the truth, but after reading post after post showing what you REALLY care about, it's about as close to a lie as one can get.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DryHeat said:


> True, but there were comparisons being made to other sets of data that DID add to 100% so have everything allocated. Just assigning proportionately would likely be close, imo, but could be argued against. So in effect, why not just start off asking what do you think about races and welfare and entitlements, etc, and not bother quoting such fuzzy data at all?


The simple answer is I would have been bombarded with "do you have a link for that information?" and I would have asked the same question had it been someone else that provided stats without back up information.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MO_cows said:


> Within your own context that if the taxpayers don't pay for birth control, we have to pay for children, Bristol is a non-issue. That's what makes it a cheap shot.
> 
> Maybe I need to get out more, but how was she the ambassador for abstinence? *Did she go around giving speeches on it or something?*


Yes, she did and was well paid to do so, according to this:
http://www.inquisitr.com/2203203/br...nly-policies-now-is-pregnant-with-child-no-2/



> Bristol Palin has for the past few years been the face of abstinence-only policies, making close to $1 million through her outreach efforts to prevent teen pregnancy.


----------



## painterswife

Repeat


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nope. nope. nope.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> It's effective until it's not, just ask Bristol Palin. Abstinence failed her twice.





po boy said:


> No, she failed to *abstain*.





Irish Pixie said:


> What's the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> Bristol Palin got pregnant twice while *using abstinence* as birth control. Isn't *not* getting pregnant the goal?


The difference?
That's like trying to explain the difference between night and day.

If you don't know, or at least CLAIM you don't, it not worth trying to explain.


----------



## arabian knight

Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the decade award.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> And I have ignored you twice. Do you now understand I'm under no obligation to answer your questions? Nor you mine.


true. I also understand that you would never answer any questions that force you to reconsider what you think to be true.

You could not answer that question because you know in your heart individuals and society need rules and discipline. If you fully acknowledged that then that reality would force you to rethink your position and change your point of view. 

I thought we were all having a discussion with combative undertones that aimed at personal growth and understanding. Imo I think you might be in this conversation just for combat.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> true. I also understand that you would never answer any questions that force you to reconsider what you think to be true.
> 
> You could not answer that question because you know in your heart individuals and society need rules and discipline. If you fully acknowledged that then that reality would force you to rethink your position and change your point of view.
> 
> I thought we were all having a discussion with combative undertones that aimed at personal growth and understanding. Imo I think you might be in this conversation just for combat.


Nope. If I'm wrong about something I admit it. I also apologize. I've done both many times. I simply don't have to answer any question I don't want to, but neither do you. If you want to suggest I'm a troll or whatever you are with using "combat" go right ahead, no skin off my nose. 

I volunteer what I'm comfortable with from my personal life. Period.


----------



## po boy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, she did and was well paid to do so, according to this:
> http://www.inquisitr.com/2203203/br...nly-policies-now-is-pregnant-with-child-no-2/


From your link...
But those who want to call Bristol Palin a hypocrite for her abstinence-only earnings may have a bit of a quandary. While she has told teen that abstinence is the best policy, she has also said, âI hate the word âabstinence.â Iâm not an abstinence preacher, ya know?â

She may have done some good. I pay as much attention to her as I do the Kardashian clan, *ZERO*


----------



## farmrbrown

Yep.
The truth is very often, uncomfortable.
:thumb:


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Since she was the "ambassador of abstinence" and it is to be assumed she knew *how* it worked, how effective is abstinence as birth control?
> 
> Apparently Bristol Palin "fell off the abstinence wagon" correct?


 perhaps you just assumed that she knew just like you are now making the assumption that her failure is proof that abstinence does not work.


----------



## Tricky Grama

elevenpoint said:


> Why raise a kid to think Kate Spade or Gucci means anything except " look what I got"?


Post of the day award.


----------



## City Bound

Bristol is not my guru. Jut because she jump up on a stage and blabs her mouth off does not make her the spokes person for all the people who believe and practice abstinence in different degrees. 

Abstinence alone works for some people.
Partial abstinence coupled with preventive birth control works for some people. 
Many people who practice abstinence do not go around preaching about it. They keep it to themselves.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> perhaps you just assumed that she knew just like you are now making the assumption that her failure is proof that abstinence does not work.


That made my brain hurt. :stars:


----------



## Tricky Grama

DJ in WA said:


> Didn't make it throught the whole thread, but here's some thoughts that may have been covered:
> 
> So I see the same short-term emotional thinking going on here that I see with tobacco users. They need it now! Who cares about the long term cancer.
> 
> Likewise, we want free food now! Forget where the money comes from or the dependence it creates, and the increased poverty long term which makes it worse. Sure, we can find hard luck stories, but multiply them by ten after government gets involved. And then we keep saying more government is the fix! As someone said government is the disease masquerading as the cure. Like a firefighter near here who was setting fires and being the hero for being first on scene to put it out. That is your savior, the government.
> 
> So we complain about lack of, or low-paying jobs, as we throw all our money at government to pay for free stuff. So how does the economy thrive when supporting an army of bureaucrats that produce nothing? And the money going to corporations for providing the "free" food.
> 
> How do we prosper by sending a dollar to WA DC and getting 30 cents back after the fraud, waste and abuse? I mean, if you think people get richer by throwing money away, PM me and I'll let you give it to me! Send me a thousand dollars and I'll give you back a hundred bucks worth of food to "keep you from starving."
> 
> So poor people pay a big price for this free stuff, but the money is taken in ways that are not visible. Like printing money to pay for it, which raises the cost of living.
> 
> The 1950's were prosperous because we slashed government spending after WW2.
> 
> We make more poor people by them becoming dependent and working less. Prosperity should come from effort, but why work if you are being supported? As they say, you get more of whatever you subsidize. Subsidize corn farmers and you get too much corn. Subsidize poor people and you get less work and too much poverty. Support people too stupid to care for their basic needs and you get more stupid people. Pure fantasy to believe you can have it any other way. Somebody needs to work! You can either be a producer or a parasite (welfare recipient, gov't worker, or corporation sucking gov't teat).
> 
> As mentioned, the rate of single parent households has skyrocketed since the war on poverty replaced dads. And then there is more poverty and crime in those households. But as per usual, government has to perpetuate a problem in order to keep offering the solution, while lining the pockets of food corporations and politicians. They need poor people!
> 
> So as we do when starting other wars, there is propaganda to create fear. We are told our kids will starve without government assistance and free food, and we believe it, and take the "free" stuff. Very easy to manipulate people with fear and emotion.
> 
> My wife taught in public school the past few years. Among the long list of the ridiculous, she said they were strongly promoting feeding kids breakfast. They would require kids coming into school to march through the breakfast line. Some kind of quota to meet or something.
> 
> And as for public schools, there is no reforming them. It is a stupid, corrupt and evil system, which is why my wife quit last year. As with other gov't programs, public schools exist to take our money by force, even if you don't have kids, and give to corporations. My wife saw art curriculum for her district for $200,000 which went unused. Spelling booklets for each student for $45 (what happened to paper and pencil?). The stories she tells about uncaring parents and kids running wild and disinterested principals and on and on could fill a book. Again, it is a free program, therefore parents expect others to take their responsibility. And kids don't care about learning because they will be fed even without useful skills.
> 
> The best thing for education would be to shut down public schools tomorrow, and let people take responsibility for their kids teaching themselves or whatever, and make the kids responsible. A kid can often learn in one hour more than they do in a day in public school. As they get older, cut support for kids so they realize they need to prepare for a job. How is it we have so many kids and teenagers doing nothing while we have immigrant workers we are trying to keep out? If all these kids are starving, why aren't they doing that work? I worked on farms from age 11. It can be done. I did not realize I was being abused.
> 
> Government wants people to feel stupid and helpless and dependent. So many young parents tell me they don't know how to teach their kids to read. Huh? You graduated high school or college and you can't teach a 5 year old?
> 
> Government programs prosper when we don't know how to cook, teach, grow food, or whatever. You would think people on a homesteading site would be for self-sufficiency, but turns out many see dependence and helplessness as the only way to survive.
> &#12288;
> &#12288;
> &#12288;


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

DJ in WA said:


> One more thought.
> 
> It just occurred to me that while we're discussing how to keep kids from starving, we are in the middle of an obesity epidemic. Which of course leads to diseases like diabetes.
> 
> I've read it is probable the lifespan of future generations will decline.
> 
> Part of the problem is government programs to push food on us and on our kids in the schools. Like defense contractors who need wars to use up bombs, food contractors need us to eat more so they can get the big government money.
> 
> And on top of that, government subsidizes the crops used to make junk food, like corn and soybeans.
> 
> On the whole, we could use more starvation in this country. But again, we will be told we are starving to get us to eat more, and we believe.
> 
> Government is our national religion. We believe it is essential to salvation. We revere gov't propaganda as scripture, which is no surprise as we were indoctrinated in gov't schools. Soon we'll be bowing to WA DC five times daily so we remember the source of life.


Yup. FAR more obese in this country than 'starving'. As far as "food insecure"? Ha. A liberal made up term b/c there's NO starving kids.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. If I'm wrong about something I admit it. I also apologize. I've done both many times. I simply don't have to answer any question I don't want to, but neither do you. If you want to suggest I'm a troll or whatever you are with using "combat" go right ahead, no skin off my nose.
> 
> I volunteer what I'm comfortable with from my personal life. Period.


Ok. Maybe the word is stubborn. 

I would challenge you to run your home and family for five years the way you think the gov should run society and then share what you have learned. I wouldn't be surprised if absolute chaos and dysfunction take over your home and family life.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> What an absolutely ridiculous statement.


What an absolutely ridiculous statement.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

po boy said:


> From your link...
> But those who want to call Bristol Palin a hypocrite for her abstinence-only earnings may have a bit of a quandary. While* she has told teen that abstinence is the best policy*, she has also said, âI hate the word âabstinence.â Iâm not an abstinence preacher, ya know?â
> 
> She may have done some good. I pay as much attention to her as I do the Kardashian clan, *ZERO*


She still was paid as an advocate for abstinence, no matter what she said afterwards


----------



## City Bound

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup. FAR more obese in this country than 'starving'. As far as "food insecure"? Ha. A liberal made up term b/c there's NO starving kids.


No, no, no....the epidemic is starving obese kids. There are two many obese kids on the verge of starvation.


----------



## Tricky Grama

haley1 said:


> Maybe we need to open clinics to voluntarily to fix people so they don' t keep have kids....... Bet this will anger a few


Post of the day award.


----------



## SLFarmMI

City Bound said:


> No, no, no....the epidemic is starving obese kids. There are two many obese kids on the verge of starvation.


Perhaps a better term would be malnourished. And, yes, it is possible to be both obese and malnourished. I would suspect that we have many children and adults (although I currently have no links) in this country who are both obese and malnourished.

Back before this thread devolved into its current state, when we were actually discussing food, there was a question about why parents don't simply feed their children healthy food and from scratch meals. The simple answer to that question is that you learn what you live and, absent any intervening factors, children who consistently are fed highly processed and/or junk foods will grow up to be adults who feed their children the same. 

So what's the answer to the problem? Punitive measures such as cutting people off and saying "do better or else" such as some are proposing just won't be effective. It is very difficult to break lifelong habits. You can't "do better" until you know better. And the only way to change lifelong habits is to consistently do something else every day. 

The most effective way to change eating habits of folks on food stamps, in my opinion, is to start with what we are feeding children in schools. Just using my school as an example (100% free lunch and universal breakfast), some of the choices we are feeding the kids for breakfast are appalling. Poptarts, strawberry milk, chocolate donuts all make regular appearances at breakfast. All approved choices according to the USDA requirements btw. However, making changes won't be easy or cheap. Are those of you complaining about FS going to be willing to pony up time and money to make those changes?


----------



## painterswife

Quote:
Originally Posted by haley1 View Post
Maybe we need to open clinics to voluntarily to fix people so they don' t keep have kids....... Bet this will anger a few



Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the day award.


We already have that. It is called Planned Parenthood.


----------



## Tricky Grama

1948CaseVAI said:


> You are long on theories and very, very short on real understanding of how the world works, aren't you? Answer police calls in the ghetto for a few years and you will never think about these issues the same way again.


Post of the year award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

City Bound said:


> Just as it is easy to say we are not doing enough and need to do more when in reality all efforts are failing or creating new problems.
> 
> You keep accusing people of lacking empathy and compassion but failing to see all the examples and personal stories people are sharing that are full of empathy and compassion. What many are saying here is that enabling people is not compassion or empathy and that sometimes compassion comes in the form of discipline. You have three kids I think, can I assume correctly that you love them and at times had to establish rules and discipline so that they could function at a higher level and grow up properly?


Mostly its a ploy to get us to pull out the studies on how conservatives GIVE more than do libs, donate TIME more, and also also blood.
Then they'll say it isn't so an& pull non-relevant, non-science studies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Mostly its a ploy to get us to pull out the studies on how *conservatives GIVE more* than do libs, donate TIME more, and also also blood.
> Then they'll say it isn't so an& pull non-relevant, non-science studies.


This thread isn't about donations.
It's about food stamps and welfare

A thread on a totally different subject could hardly be a "ploy" of any sort


----------



## Tricky Grama

mnn2501 said:


> Smart Phones, cable TV, spinning wheel covers and booming stereos for their cars, designer clothes, tattoo's, fancy hairdo's and nails, booze/drugs -- surely something can be cut back on to buy food.


This is too often the case. 

We had a big drive in our neighborhood + 3 others to gather supplies for the homeless. Now one of the gals who transported stuff has 2 or 3 homeless calling her...asking for chips, homemade coockies...I don't know her but #1-how do they have her #??. #2, what are they doing w/cell phones? How do they charge 'em?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Txsteader said:


> I've seen the arguments made on this site that women are too ignorant/irresponsible to use birth control properly and, now, to cook on a hot plate.
> 
> Perhaps we should be funding classes in birth control & cooking/nutrition. It's remarkable to me how ignorant women have become in just a couple of generations.


This is the problem-keeping them dependent. 

I love all the sugestions of improvement made by the non-conserves here. 

No shortage of whining/griping there.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> This is the problem them dependent.
> 
> I love all the sugesstions of improvement made by the non-conserves here.
> 
> No shortage of whining/griping there.


Are you under the impression that conservatives don't do their fair share of whining/griping?

That is the post of the minute. About all it's worth.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Heritagefarm said:


> Every religious right group in America? You are not following politics very closely if you are not aware of how rabidly opposed to abortion religious right groups are. However, to separate my own opinion, I oppose abortion, but support women's right to choose. I consider it an immoral option in any case, but am unwilling to force my sense of morality on others.


Sorry, but abortion is not birth control.
And those who whine about Hobby Lobby rightfully being able to exempt from giving/providing an abortive type birth control while GIVING FREE 40 other types are showing ignorance.

There were abortion clinics in TX that did NOT meet standards of y surgery center. This is wrong, dangerous, and HAS resulted in harm to women in the past. Having a doc who can admit a patient to a hospital as needed was a must IMHO but did not get passed into law.


----------



## Nevada

dixiegal62 said:


> Guess she changed her mind. I think we all change our minds from time to time.


But that's the problem with abstinence, they change their minds. So the questions is how we deal with them changing their minds. Any suggestions?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Txsteader View Post
> I've seen the arguments made on this site that women are too ignorant/irresponsible to use birth control properly and, now, to cook on a hot plate.
> 
> *Perhaps we should be funding classes in birth control* & cooking/nutrition. It's remarkable to me how ignorant women have become in just a couple of generations.


Planned Parenthood teaches birth control.
Don't you object to funding them?


----------



## City Bound

Tricky Grama said:


> This is too often the case.
> 
> We had a big drive in our neighborhood + 3 others to gather supplies for the homeless. Now one of the gals who transported stuff has 2 or 3 homeless calling her...asking for chips, homemade coockies...I don't know her but #1-how do they have her #??. #2, what are they doing w/cell phones? How do they charge 'em?


 
I saw a homeless guy sitting on a bag of garbage (like a beanbag) watching a movie on a brand new portable dvd player. He looked very comfortable. This was in the wealthy area of the upper west side in manhatten. Then some wealthy guy coming out of the subway station said hello to the homeless guy and addressed him by his first name. Then the wealthy looking guy handed the homeless guy a $20 bill and said have a nice night.


----------



## City Bound

Nevada said:


> But that's the problem with abstinence, they change their minds. So the questions is how we deal with them changing their minds. Any suggestions?


 We cant do anything about it just like we can not do anything when people change their mind about using condoms or taking birth control pills. 

Informing people of the accountability of sex and encouraging them to look before they leap would help.


----------



## po boy

Tricky Grama said:


> This is too often the case.
> 
> We had a big drive in our neighborhood + 3 others to gather supplies for the homeless. Now one of the gals who transported stuff has 2 or 3 homeless calling her...asking for chips, homemade coockies...I don't know her but #1-how do they have her #??. #2, what are they doing w/cell phones? How do they charge 'em?


I imagine there are a lot of outlets they use outside of a lot of commercial buildings.


----------



## wr

Tricky Grama said:


> This is the problem them dependent.


I don't disagree with the dependency. Several reserves found that poor eating habits from members on welfare or other subsidies had gotten to the point where members were suffering significant health problems commonly associated with poor diet. At one point in time, a bag of chips and a bottle of Orange crush was literally called, Indian Breakfast because it was so common. 

There was a concerted effort to upgrade kitchens to the point where families had working appliances and incorporated mandatory home economics type classes. Members learned to cook traditional recipes, combined traditional and normal recipes (Indian tacos is something everyone should try) as well as monthly meal planning, budget planning and grocery shopping by using lists and shopping for sales. 

By all standards, the programs have been very successful. Childhood obesity rates have dropped dramatically and 25 years on, there have been dramatic decreases in preventable health problems. 

I don't know if the same system would even work elsewhere but it remains in place and continues to be quite effective.


----------



## painterswife

City Bound said:


> We cant do anything about it just like we can not do anything when people change their mind about using condoms or taking birth control pills.
> 
> Informing people of the accountability of sex and encouraging them to look before they leap would help.


We can however provide free or relatively inexpensive and more effective forms of birth control that take the "changing their mind in the moment" out of the equation. That is helping them with accountability.


----------



## Tricky Grama

City Bound said:


> How many of the people who get abortions are there because they are victims of rape and incest? I gamble that only 5% are.
> 
> What about the best form of birth control, abstinence?
> You do not have to be religious to practice abstinence.
> I am not religious and I chose to have long periods of abstinence as a form of birth control. I am as frisky as the rest of the human race but I just do not want the hassle of an unwanted kid with an unwanted woman just because I had to scratch and animal itch.
> 
> It is hard to do but it works. Maybe people need to start keeping their pants on.


Its 1%.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html


----------



## dixiegal62

Nevada said:


> But that's the problem with abstinence, they change their minds. So the questions is how we deal with them changing their minds. Any suggestions?


Are you suggesting you have the right to tell Bristol what she can do with her body?


----------



## po boy

Bearfootfarm said:


> She still *was paid* as an advocate for abstinence, no matter what she said afterwards


Never said she wasn't.
The links in your article go back to 2011 or earlier. 

*was paid?*

Appears to be 2011 or about a 2 year span


----------



## Nevada

City Bound said:


> We cant do anything about it just like we can not do anything when people change their mind about using condoms or taking birth control pills.


But there's the problem. We all know that a certain number of teens trying to be abstinent will change their minds, but abstinence-only advocates don't want to deal with it. That means that there will be a certain number of failures that will result in pregnancy.

The other problem is that one study after another shows that abstinence-only education doesn't significantly impact the number of high school kids practicing abstinence. From that standpoint, it's a failure. So doesn't that indicate that something else should be tried to address teen pregnancy?

Sometimes I wonder if sex education doesn't have more to do with keeping teens from having sex than it has to do with curbing teen pregnancy. Is that what this is about to some of you?


----------



## painterswife

po boy said:


> Never said she wasn't.
> The links in your article go back to 2011 or earlier.
> 
> *was paid?*


http://www.inquisitr.com/2203203/br...nly-policies-now-is-pregnant-with-child-no-2/

"Bristol Palin has for the past few years been the face of abstinence-only policies, making close to $1 million through her outreach efforts to prevent teen pregnancy.
And now she&#8217;s pregnant again, expecting her second out-of-wedlock child."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

po boy said:


> Never said she wasn't.
> The links in your article go back to 2011 or earlier.
> 
> *was paid?*
> 
> Appears to be 2011 or about a 2 year span


Congratulations on being able to read?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Point taken. I happen to find people more important than guns, your mileage may vary. What Texas has done to poor woman should be actionable, but a few years of paying for lots of babies may take care of that on it's own.
> 
> The ugliness on this thread appalls me. I know shouldn't be surprised anymore, but I am. All the outwardly kind and concerned people will toddle off tomorrow morning and pat themselves on the back and say they are good people, when really, they aren't at all. They begrudge the food in a poor kid's mouth. If that isn't ugly I don't what is...


This is just another way you think you can lord a holier than thou attitude on conservatives. 
NO ONE here says let kids go hungry.
The points made are for personal responsibility.
Give a man a fish & he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish & he eats for life.
The other points made here is that we are a nation of overweight folks-a good % of them are kids & this is a FAR greater problem that any liberal who thinks 'food insecurity' is a real thing. Far greater. Even if there was an epidemic of 'food insecurity, it would be healthier to have that rarity than obese kids.


----------



## po boy

Nevada said:


> But that's the problem with abstinence, they change their minds. So the questions is how we deal with them changing their minds. Any suggestions?


 Changing their mind is not a problem. Humans do that!


----------



## Nevada

po boy said:


> Changing their mind is not a problem. Humans do that!


But isn't the objective to curb teen pregnancy? If those programs aren't accomplishing that, it's that a problem?

Tell me, what is the point of teaching abstinence-only?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> This is just another way you think you can lord a holier than thou attitude on conservatives.
> NO ONE here says let go hungry.
> The points made are for personal responsibility.
> Give a man a fish & he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish & he eats for life.
> The other points made here is that we are a nation of overweight folks-a good % of them are kids & this is a FAR greater problem that any liberal who thinks 'food insecurity' is a real thing. Far greater. *Even if there was an epidemic of 'food insecurity, it would be healthier to have that rarity than obese kids.*


You are saying it is better to have hungry kids instead of kids who have been fed the wrong food and are obese? That is a logic I will never understand.


----------



## Tricky Grama

OffGridCooker said:


> What appalls me are the "good hearted" people the give away other people's money while falsly elevating themselves to a higher moral plain as if they actually were the ones pulling the wagon.
> And it is sad that you would accuse good people of begrudging the food in a poor kids mouth.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Are you suggesting you have the right to tell Bristol what she can do with her body?


Hmm. Did you hurt yourself with that stretch? It looks painful.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Heritagefarm said:


> You realize that's annoying, right?


To you? Ask who cares...


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Bristol Palin was the "ambassador of abstinence" until she got pregnant twice. You many not like but it happened, twice. Abstinence is only works until it doesn't.
> 
> I never said she'd be on food stamps, never even implied it.


Then I guess your post about her was not relevant to this discussion.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> This thread isn't about donations.
> It's about food stamps and welfare
> 
> A thread on a totally different subject could hardly be a "ploy" of any sort


The thread devolved into how horrible conservatives are-for wanting kids to go hungry-& to just gripe instead of help. Maybe you could keep up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> The thread devolved into how horrible conservatives are-for wanting kids to go hungry-& to just gripe instead of help. Maybe you could keep up.


No
That's your spin alone, and it's not even a new one


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> You are saying it is better to have hungry kids instead of kids who have been fed the wrong food and are obese? That is a logic I will never understand.


Did you READ what you quoted? Did I say its better to have hungry kids instead of kids who have been fed the wrong food & are obese? I said nothing of the sort.

I said It would be better to have the rarity of a 'food insecure' incident (if there was such a thing) than a nation of obesity. I DO have links, if anyone thinks obesity is not a worse problem than hunger.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Hmm. Did you hurt yourself with that stretch? It looks painful.


I take it you only read my answer to Nevada and not his comment.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I take it you only read my answer to Nevada and not his comment.


No, I read his comment as well.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> No
> That's your spin alone, and it's not even a new one


You must've missed this...

Originally Posted by Irish Pixie View Post

The ugliness on this thread appalls me. I know shouldn't be surprised anymore, but I am. All the outwardly kind and concerned people will toddle off tomorrow morning and pat themselves on the back and say they are good people, when really, they aren't at all. They begrudge the food in a poor kid's mouth. If that isn't ugly I don't what is...


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Did you READ what you quoted? Did I say its better to have hungry kids instead of kids who have been fed the wrong food & are obese? I said nothing of the sort.
> 
> I said It would be better to have the rarity of a 'food insecure' incident (if there was such a thing) than a nation of obesity. I DO have links, if anyone thinks obesity is not a worse problem than hunger.


 Spin it any way you want now. You posted it. It was crystal clear what you wrote.


----------



## dixiegal62

Tricky Grama said:


> The thread devolved into how horrible conservatives are-for wanting kids to go hungry-& to just gripe instead of help. Maybe you could keep up.


This thread was started for that and when they couldn't defend their position, they changed the subject. Good entertainment for a rainy Sunday


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> This thread was started for that and when they couldn't defend their position, they changed the subject. Good entertainment for a rainy Sunday


I believe it is called "thread drift" and very common. 

It's so common there is even a definition at Webster Dictionary:

"topic drift - Term used on GEnie, Usenet and other electronic fora to describe the tendency of a thread to drift away from the original subject of discussion (and thus, from the Subject header of the originating message), or the results of that tendency.

Often used in gentle reminders that the discussion has strayed off any useful track. "I think we started with a question about Niven's last book, but we've ended up discussing the sexual habits of the common marmoset. Now *that's* topic drift!"

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/topic drift


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> I believe it is called "thread drift" and very common.


Whatever you want to call it still good entertainment for a otherwise boring day


----------



## poppy

Irish Pixie said:


> Last post. Yes, there is low cost effective birth control but it has to be where low income women can get it. *Most don't own cars, can't afford taxis, and public transportation doesn't go everywhere. *With states defunding clinics the woman have to go farther for something that used to be in their neighborhood. If they can't get to a clinic for effective birth control they are forced to less effective birth control. What can happen when less effective birth control is used? Pregnancy! 18 out of every 100 women will become pregnant using a condom alone. So she is now pregnant (while using birth control), she either aborts or carries to term (her choice). She was responsible, she used birth control, but it wasn't effective. Is she still a "mooch"? Think about that before you jump to conclusions and judge another human being.


How do these poor women with no available transportation get to the grocery store, tattoo parlor, hairdresser, and such? Your arguments are a sad joke. Those women manage to get anywhere they want to go. You try to portray those poor women as being confined to a small hovel with no shoes or food. It flies in the face of reality. Check out the clubs in any black neighborhood and you'll find those poor women drinking and dancing on Friday and Saturday night. We ALL want to spend our money on things we want and they make the same choices. Sadly, their spending choices aren't always good ones. It's easier to cry "poor me" and expect someone else to pick up the tab. Now college students are doing it too.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa

poppy said:


> How did people feed their kids before all these wonderful government programs? I've never heard of kids falling over dead from starvation back in those days. Their parents were responsible enough to feed them. And guess what, we had a lot less pudgy kids running around. Their moms cooked real food and they often took leftovers for lunch at school. Nothing wrong with a cold chicken leg and left over baked potato for a kid's lunch. That's plenty of food for a child or a lot of overweight adults. Today's parents rely on the school to warm up some processed hot dogs or other garbage for their kids. My grandkids refuse to eat that school garbage and take their lunch except on taco days.


I recall (1950 or so) several kids at school with bloated malnourished bellies. I can even remember people calling them fat. I remember visiting a friend's home where the main meal of the day was white bread with a slice of bologna and that wasn't available until dad came home with the food after work. I was fortunate that my parents were hard workers and good managers so we always had good food on the table. It might have been beans, but they were well cooked and tasty.

Any government program will have abuses both from those in charge as well as recipients cheating. So perhaps rather than starving kids the better choice would be to streamline the program so there isn't so much waste in management and very public punishment for those who cheat. Bring back home economics classes to teach nutrition and cooking which could be done by eliminating sex education classes which the kids no too much about anyway.


----------



## painterswife

poppy said:


> How do these poor women with no available transportation get to the grocery store, tattoo parlor, hairdresser, and such? Your arguments are a sad joke. Those women manage to get anywhere they want to go. You try to portray those poor women as being confined to a small hovel with no shoes or food. It flies in the face of reality. Check out the clubs in any *black neighborhood* and you'll find those poor women drinking and dancing on Friday and Saturday night. We ALL want to spend our money on things we want and they make the same choices. Sadly, their spending choices aren't always good ones. It's easier to cry "poor me" and expect someone else to pick up the tab. Now college students are doing it too.


I find this post very racist. You mentioned black women when the OP shows that the biggest group using food stamps is white not black.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> But isn't the objective to curb teen pregnancy? If those programs aren't accomplishing that, it's that a problem?
> 
> Tell me, what is the point of teaching abstinence-only?


Since we live in different world today it probably won't do much good when mommy drags home the latest prize from the bar for sex when the kids are just down the hall.


----------



## painterswife

elevenpoint said:


> Since we live in different world today it probably won't do much good when mommy drags home the latest prize from the bar for sex when the kids are just down the hall.


That is nothing new. I was born in the 50's and I had friends who lived that experience.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Since we live in different world today it probably won't do much good when mommy drags home the latest prize from the bar for sex when the kids are just down the hall.





painterswife said:


> That is nothing new. I was born in the 50's and I had friends who lived that experience.


But the point is that the objective of abstinence-only sex ed is something other than teen pregnancy.


----------



## coolrunnin

elevenpoint said:


> Since we live in different world today it probably won't do much good when mommy drags home the latest prize from the bar for sex when the kids are just down the hall.


Your kidding right, unmarried sex has been going on since the cave man days.


----------



## coolrunnin

poppy said:


> How do these poor women with no available transportation get to the grocery store, tattoo parlor, hairdresser, and such? Your arguments are a sad joke. Those women manage to get anywhere they want to go. You try to portray those poor women as being confined to a small hovel with no shoes or food. It flies in the face of reality. Check out the clubs in any black neighborhood and you'll find those poor women drinking and dancing on Friday and Saturday night. We ALL want to spend our money on things we want and they make the same choices. Sadly, their spending choices aren't always good ones. It's easier to cry "poor me" and expect someone else to pick up the tab. Now college students are doing it too.


I'm pretty sure you don't have to go to the black neighborhood, local honky tonk will work just fine, it just doesn't fit your mold.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> But the point is that the objective of abstinence-only sex ed is something other than teen pregnancy.


And that is?


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> And that is?


Teaching morals to teens.


----------



## po boy

Nevada said:


> Teaching morals to teens.


Is that a bad?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> Teaching morals to teens.


Most are sexting and sending naked pics by 12 y.o. Different world today. No phones are internet till 18?


----------



## Nevada

po boy said:


> Is that a bad?


It's that I've never seen it admitted before. Conservatives have always pretended that abstinence was a realistic approach to solving the teen pregnancy problem. If you're just pushing your morals on teens, that's a different story.

It's not that teaching morals is bad, it's that teaching morals isn't the place of public schools. But we do have a social interest in curbing teen pregnancy, since it's an expensive problem that can impact the future of students.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Ann-NWIowa said:


> I recall (1950 or so) several kids at school with bloated malnourished bellies. I can even remember people calling them fat. I remember visiting a friend's home where the main meal of the day was white bread with a slice of bologna and that wasn't available until dad came home with the food after work. I was fortunate that my parents were hard workers and good managers so we always had good food on the table. It might have been beans, but they were well cooked and tasty.
> 
> Any government program will have abuses both from those in charge as well as recipients cheating. So perhaps rather than starving kids the better choice would be to streamline the program so there isn't so much waste in management and very public punishment for those who cheat. Bring back home economics classes to teach nutrition and cooking which could be done by eliminating sex education classes which the kids no too much about anyway.


t yet here we are in 2016, still talking about starving kids. And no one has shown an example.

The obesity epidemic is far more harmful.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> t yet here we are in 2016, still talking about starving kids. And no one has shown an example.
> 
> The obesity epidemic is far more harmful.


I don't agree with that. We can reduce the effects and even reverse the effects of obesity but children not having their nutritional needs met can permanently stunt their physical and metal growth.


----------



## mnn2501

painterswife said:


> I find this post very racist. You mentioned black women when the OP shows that the biggest group using food stamps is white not black.


Actually, that was proved incorrect on pages 1 or 2.

Whites use less food stamps than blacks per percentage of the population. In fact, per percentage of the population, Blacks use way more than any other race.


----------



## painterswife

mnn2501 said:


> Actually, that was proved incorrect on pages 1 or 2.
> 
> Whites use less food stamps than blacks per percentage of the population. In fact, per percentage of the population, Blacks use way more than any other race.


Either way still racist to call out black people and not the entire group for one practice.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Either way still racist to call out black people and not the entire group for one practice.


Facts are racist now?


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> I find this post very racist. You mentioned black women when the OP shows that the biggest group using food stamps is white not black.


That's racist against whites, mostly because it's not true


----------



## Heritagefarm

mnn2501 said:


> Actually, that was proved incorrect on pages 1 or 2.
> 
> Whites use less food stamps than blacks per percentage of the population. In fact, per percentage of the population, Blacks use way more than any other race.


And then it was debunked by showing that blacks are disproportionately more in poverty than whites. 
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf
So, now you have to either find a way to debunk this graph, or you have to show why blacks are lazier than whites, why they're inferior, etc. The science is not on your side.


----------



## coolrunnin

Heritagefarm said:


> And then it was debunked by showing that blacks are disproportionately more in poverty than whites.
> https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf
> So, now you have to either find a way to debunk this graph, or you have to show why blacks are lazier than whites, why they're inferior, etc. The science is not on your side.


Wasn't debunked that was the point.


----------



## City Bound

painterswife said:


> We can however provide free or relatively inexpensive and more effective forms of birth control that take the "changing their mind in the moment" out of the equation. That is helping them with accountability.


Where is the money going to come from though? Don't you think we all need to take some responsibility for our actions? 

In the social culture of wolves young male and female wolves are prohibited from mating by the group. The rest of the wolf pack makes the young adult wolves look after all the children of all the older wolves. The pack makes the young adults babysit. After the young adult wolves have learned to care for the babies and the younger wolves and they can do so to the satisfaction of the pack then the pack permits them to court and mate. I do not recall how long the young adults are forced t babysit but I vaguely recall it lasting two years. 

Wolves have more sense then us.


----------



## coolrunnin

It was my understanding that obamacare covers birth control. Looks to me like you can go to any provider and receive your care.

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-birth-control/


----------



## Irish Pixie

coolrunnin said:


> It was my understanding that obamacare covers birth control. Looks to me like you can go to any provider and receive your care.
> 
> http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-birth-control/


Not everyone is eligible for Obamacare, some still use medicaid. Texas has done away with Medicaid so they could defund PP, they are self insured now. There are also the states that wouldn't enhance medicaid.

The "low income baby" thread details this information.


----------



## City Bound

Nevada said:


> But there's the problem. We all know that a certain number of teens trying to be abstinent will change their minds, but abstinence-only advocates don't want to deal with it. That means that there will be a certain number of failures that will result in pregnancy.
> 
> The other problem is that one study after another shows that abstinence-only education doesn't significantly impact the number of high school kids practicing abstinence. From that standpoint, it's a failure. So doesn't that indicate that something else should be tried to address teen pregnancy?
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if sex education doesn't have more to do with keeping teens from having sex than it has to do with curbing teen pregnancy. Is that what this is about to some of you?


Sex education is meant to empower people to understand. 

The best sex education is simply to inform children and adults about how the human reproductive system works, the social danger of stds and how to prevent, identify, and treat those stds, and to teach ways to manage ones power of reproduction through various birth control. The best education gives knowledge and lets people use it as they see fit in their lives. 

Teaching abstinence is part of sex education just as is teaching about abortion. Individuals may find ether or distasteful but it is up to them how they will implement that knowledge.

Abstinence only is not a solution for everyone. It is not for me.


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> Not everyone is eligible for Obamacare, some still use medicaid. Texas has done away with Medicaid so they could defund PP, they are self insured now. There are also the states that wouldn't enhance medicaid.
> 
> The "low income baby" thread details this information.


No Texas did not do away with Medicaid, they just didn't enhance it.

https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-state/texas.html


----------



## Heritagefarm

coolrunnin said:


> Wasn't debunked that was the point.


Blacks are poorer than whites. Blacks use more benefits than whites. What is not debunked about that?


----------



## City Bound

painterswife said:


> I find this post very racist. You mentioned black women when the OP shows that the biggest group using food stamps is white not black.


The largest number of people on stamps are white but within the white community only about 10% of white people are on stamps. 
The amount of people on stamps in the black community is nearly 50% of the community. That is significant. 

That is the propaganda trick of the OP. The data makes one believe that less blacks use stamp when in fact nearly 50% of the black population is on stamps. If you took a sample of 100 whites and 100 blacks, ten whites would be on snap and almost 50 blacks would be on snap. Do you really still think that more of the white population uses stamps then the black population? The black community is more dependent on snap then the white community.

I believe the OP said there were 70 million people on Snap. There are nearly 200 million whites in America. If the percentage of the white population on snap matched the percentage of the black population on snap there would be nearly 100 million whites on snap which is more then all the current users combined.


----------



## coolrunnin

Irish Pixie said:


> Not everyone is eligible for Obamacare, some still use medicaid. Texas has done away with Medicaid so they could defund PP, they are self insured now. There are also the states that wouldn't enhance medicaid.
> 
> The "low income baby" thread details this information.


Oh! When it was promoted it was to cover those who didn't have coverage you even came on here saying it needed passed because all the poor needed help, well they have help but it's still not enough, when does enough become enough?


----------



## Irish Pixie

coolrunnin said:


> Oh! When it was promoted it was to cover those who didn't have coverage you even came on here saying it needed passed because all the poor needed help, well they have help but it's still not enough, when does enough become enough?


How would I know? I knew nothing about Obamacare until the "low income baby thread". We have excellent employer sponsored insurance, and always have.


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> No Texas did not do away with Medicaid, they just didn't enhance it.
> 
> https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-state/texas.html


I stand corrected. They gutted women's health care and now have a limited program. http://www.texaswomenshealth.org/


----------



## Txsteader

deleted


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> I stand corrected. They gutted women's health care and now have a limited program. http://www.texaswomenshealth.org/


Limited in what way? Looks like they provide most everything that PP provided......except abortions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Limited in what way? Looks like they provide most everything that PP provided......except abortions.


Read for yourself. http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/548225-more-low-income-babies-tx.html


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> I stand corrected. They gutted women's health care and now have a limited program. http://www.texaswomenshealth.org/


You make it sound so sinister. I am not sure it is. I looked at the website for women's health you posted. Looks like they have everything there for birth control and screenings for cancer and all kinds of stuff. Now I am not a women so I am not sure its complete but looks like it was. I even did a search for a remote town. Used Pandale as it was way way out in the sticks. Found one 26.18 mile from that town. Didn't even think that would be possible.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> You make it sound so sinister. I am not sure it is. I looked at the website for women's health you posted. Looks like they have everything there for birth control and screenings for cancer and all kinds of stuff. Now I am not a women so I am not sure its complete but looks like it was. I even did a search for a remote town. Used Pandale as it was way way out in the sticks. Found one 26.18 mile from that town. Didn't even think that would be possible.


Does everyone own a car?


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Does everyone own a car?


If they live in Pandale they own a truck. Or a horse. Either will be a four wheel drive or a four hoof drive. 

But that doesn't matter anyway. There is a program here. Not sure if its state or federal that provides transportation to any and all Dr visits. My BIL (disability) uses it and they take him sometimes to Dallas 4 hours away to certain specialists.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Does everyone own a car?


Does a woman have control of her pants


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> If they live in Pandale they own a truck. Or a horse. Either will be a four wheel drive or a four hoof drive.
> 
> But that doesn't matter anyway. There is a program here. Not sure if its state or federal that provides transportation to any and all Dr visits. My BIL (disability) uses it and they take him sometimes to Dallas 4 hours away to certain specialists.


I'm not rehashing this, read or reread the link: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/spe...babies-tx.html


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Does everyone own a car?


Most people do, those that do not know someone who does.


----------



## Evons hubby

Ok, I'm more than a little late to the discussion but in answer to the ops question as to who is on food stamps.... Far too many!


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not rehashing this, read or reread the link: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/spe...babies-tx.html


I actually did already. I know Wayne Christian personally too and he was right, it was an attack directly at PP. But, they are still available here at lower cost and free transportation to low income, so they can get a ride to the PP that are still here. 

This whole law may have been actually something to save money but still allow access to PP. Still not convinced yet as to the actual rise in "unplanned" pregnancies as being directly related. We have had a very large increase in Immigrants and they are having anchor babies right and left.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> I actually did already. I know Wayne Christian personally too and he was right, it was an attack directly at PP. But, they are still available here at lower cost and free transportation to low income, so they can get a ride to the PP that are still here.
> 
> This whole law may have been actually something to save money but still allow access to PP. Still not convinced yet as to the actual rise in "unplanned" pregnancies as being directly related. We have had a very large increase in Immigrants and they are having anchor babies right and left.


That's why the OP of that thread indicates that there was (is still?) an increase in babies born to low income women because of the shutdown of the majority of PP clinics, right? How much is TX saving paying for them? We went through this before, TX cut off it's nose to spite it's face.

ETA: For a women to get a legal abortion in TX she may have to travel hours to a clinic. A legal procedure.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> That's why the OP of that thread indicates that there was (is still?) an increase in babies born to low income women because of the shutdown of the majority of PP clinics, right? How much is TX saving paying for them? We went through this before, TX cut off it's nose to spite it's face.


Understand that. And I am not saying you are wrong. Not saying I am right either. I just think we both need more facts than what are in that article. 

Anchor babies are definitely planned. They are just recorded as unplanned because we have to pay for them. These people will not go to PP. Even if the pregnancy was unplanned then most are Catholic and so that is a no no too.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> That's why the OP of that thread indicates that there was (is still?) an increase in babies born to low income women because of the shutdown of the majority of PP clinics, right? How much is TX saving paying for them? We went through this before, TX cut off it's nose to spite it's face.
> 
> ETA: For a women to get a legal abortion in TX she may have to travel hours to a clinic. A legal procedure.


That depends on how many social programs the state is footing the bill for... Pretty sure snap and hud housing is funded by the Feds.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> ETA: For a women to get a legal abortion in TX she may have to travel hours to a clinic. A legal procedure.



But here is the thing on that. Now in Texas, you have to have an abortion in a medical facility. The free rides are for consultations too. They can now get that free ride for that consultation because it is at a medical facility whereas before they may not have had access to that ride.


----------



## painterswife

mreynolds said:


> But here is the thing on that. Now in Texas, you have to have an abortion in a medical facility. The free rides are for consultations too. They can now get that free ride for that consultation because it is at a medical facility whereas before they may not have had access to that ride.


Are you saying that abortions and the associated travel costs are covered in Texas now?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Understand that. And I am not saying you are wrong. Not saying I am right either. I just think we both need more facts than what are in that article.
> 
> Anchor babies are definitely planned. They are just recorded as unplanned because we have to pay for them. These people will not go to PP. Even if the pregnancy was unplanned then most are Catholic and so that is a no no too.


Again, if it was just anchor babies why did the amount of pregnancies increase after the closing of the majority of PP clinics? I believe the study said that PP handled 60% of TX low income women's health care. Was it just a coincidence?


----------



## mreynolds

painterswife said:


> Are you saying that abortions and the associated travel costs are covered in Texas now?


I am saying I don't know. But I looked up the free rides for my BIL because he had heard about them. They told me that they would give rides to any medical appointment, surgery or consultation. I will find out though. I am only assuming at this point that since they only allow abortions at medical facilities they would be covered. 

It works like Uber. There is a list of people that are on the list. You call them and arrange it. They take you and get paid mileage. There is some form to be signed by the DR. That's all I know.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, if it was just anchor babies why did the amount of pregnancies increase after the closing of the majority of PP clinics? I believe the study said that PP handled 60% of TX low income women's health care. Was it just a coincidence?


Because the increase in the last few years due to the cartel increased that much too. Not saying that's why in entirety but it is part of it. It would be like saying Trump is the cause of oil prices declining just because the timeline of his candidacy is in direct correlation to price decline. He may be but it wouldn't be the whole story.


----------



## AmericanStand

painterswife said:


> You are saying it is better to have hungry kids instead of kids who have been fed the wrong food and are obese? That is a logic I will never understand.



Why is that hard to understand ?

Both are unhealthy. 

Bad. 

He simply thinks obese is a worse health hazard than hungry. 

He might be right. 
I've never seen any studies on it but it seems like over all he is right. 

The only clearly winning point though would seem to be that you can die quickly from lack of food.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Because the increase in the last few years due to the cartel increased that much too. Not saying that's why in entirety but it is part of it. It would be like saying Trump is the cause of oil prices declining just because the timeline of his candidacy is in direct correlation to price decline. He may be but it wouldn't be the whole story.


I believe I read in the prior thread (I'm not rereading the whole thing) that TX government officials predicted this would happen. How can it not be because of making effective birth control harder to get? Really? Think about it. 

The Trump comparison doesn't work anyway because Trump has no control over the price of oil. Making birth control harder to get is a contributing factor for increased birth rate.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> Texas has done away with Medicaid so they could defund PP, they are self insured now.


Texas has NOT done away with Medicaid, my brother is on it and he lives here in Texas.

Get your "facts" straight.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> Texas has NOT done away with Medicaid, my brother is on it and he lives here in Texas.
> 
> Get your "facts" straight.


How'd you miss post #515 where I said this:



Irish Pixie said:


> I stand corrected. They gutted women's health care and now have a limited program. http://www.texaswomenshealth.org/


You really should read everything.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> ETA: For a women to get a legal abortion in TX she may have to travel hours to a clinic. A legal procedure.


How terrible for her. She has to travel hours to murder a baby.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> I believe I read in the prior thread (I'm not rereading the whole thing) that TX government officials predicted this would happen. How can it not be because of making effective birth control harder to get? Really? Think about it.
> 
> The Trump comparison doesn't work anyway because Trump has no control over the price of oil. Making birth control harder to get is a contributing factor for increased birth rate.


Yes, I understand that _some_ government officials predicted this would happen. I bet it wasn't all though. There were opponents against it. Coal strip mining companies in Appalachia predict economic fortunes and opponents predict drinking bottled water for the rest of their days there. Its not always cut and dried as it seems. 

And yes the Trump thing was way off but it was all I can think of on short notice.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Yes, I understand that _some_ government officials predicted this would happen. I bet it wasn't all though. There were opponents against it. Coal strip mining companies in Appalachia predict economic fortunes and opponents predict drinking bottled water for the rest of their days there. Its not always cut and dried as it seems.
> 
> And yes the Trump thing was way off but it was all I can think of on short notice.


Brain seize... I know it well.


----------



## Heritagefarm

City Bound said:


> The largest number of people on stamps are white but within the white community only about 10% of white people are on stamps.
> The amount of people on stamps in the black community is nearly 50% of the community. That is significant.



FROM THE OP:
46M Americans on SNAP
BLACKS on SNAP: *25.7%* = ~11,822,000
BLACKS IN US: 76,615,167
Percent on SNAP: *15.4%*

Number IMPOVERISHED: ~10,145,200
Overall percent: 13.16% (figure includes children and elderly)

Reiteration: Blacks on SNAP - 25.7%; impoverished blacks - 13.16%.
This means that there are about 11 million blacks on SNAP, while about 10 million of them are impoverished and fully eligible. 
Further, only 13.16% of impoverished blacks are on SNAP. (The numbers are almost the same for both groups.)
The simplest way to phrase this is that *only 13% of blacks are on SNAP.*

Get your facts straight. Am I the only one with a calculator!?

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3.htm
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/
Numbers Blacks in US


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by City Bound View Post
> The largest number of people on stamps are white but within the white community only about 10% of white people are on stamps.
> The amount of people on stamps in the black community is nearly *50%* of the community. That is *significant*.


You misspelled "false"


----------



## City Bound

Heritagefarm said:


> FROM THE OP:
> 46M Americans on SNAP
> BLACKS on SNAP: *25.7%* = ~11,822,000
> BLACKS IN US: 76,615,167
> Percent on SNAP: *15.4%*
> 
> Number IMPOVERISHED: ~10,145,200
> Overall percent: 13.16% (figure includes children and elderly)
> 
> Reiteration: Blacks on SNAP - 25.7%; impoverished blacks - 13.16%.
> This means that there are about 11 million blacks on SNAP, while about 10 million of them are impoverished and fully eligible.
> Further, only 13.16% of impoverished blacks are on SNAP. (The numbers are almost the same for both groups.)
> The simplest way to phrase this is that *only 13% of blacks are on SNAP.*
> 
> Get your facts straight. Am I the only one with a calculator!?


This source bellow says there are 53 million blacks in America. That makes roughly 22% of black americans on snap. Still a greater over all volume of users by percentage in relation to the over all volume of their community then the over all percentage of users in the white community. 

Guess it all depends where the numbers are coming from and who is using them which was why myself and others objected to the OP. 

Calculators and computers can only repeat what humans put into them. Check on the internet and you will find much conflicting data muddled up with much opinion and slant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#White_Americans


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> That is nothing new. I was born in the 50's and I had friends who lived that experience.


But do you have anything showing that 72% of black babies were born out of wedlock then? If not, your study of your experiences don't mean much.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I don't agree with that. We can reduce the effects and even reverse the effects of obesity but children not having their nutritional needs met can permanently stunt their physical and metal growth.


Of course you don't agree. It doesn't fit w/lib agenda. Far more emotional damage is done to kids who are obese. Far more health problems, for all their lives. Far more kids are obese than going hungry.


http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm

http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body/overweight_obesity.html

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/children/

http://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/education/health_risks_for_overweight_children/

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/Overweight-in-Children_UCM_304054_Article.jsp


----------



## Tricky Grama

coolrunnin said:


> It was my understanding that obamacare covers birth control. Looks to me like you can go to any provider and receive your care.
> 
> http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-birth-control/


We've posted these facts b/4 yet they do not seem to grasp it.


----------



## AmericanStand

Tricky Grama said:


> To you? Ask who cares...



Actually it annoys a bunch of us , even when we are in agreement. 
I'd be in favor of giving you multiple profiles named "post of the day" year , decade and millineum so that you could just hit the like button and have "post of the day" etc come out under the post you favor. 

Essentially that's what you are doing instead of hitting the like button. 
But it makes the threads difficult to read and if we all did it it would would bring everything to a halt.


----------



## painterswife

painterswife said:


> That is nothing new. I was born in the 50's and I had friends who lived that experience.





Tricky Grama said:


> But do you have anything showing that 72% of black babies were born out of wedlock then? If not, your study of your experiences don't mean much.


What does black babies have to do with with me saying that my friends parents brought home people from the bar?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> *Of course you don't agree. It doesn't fit w/lib agenda*. Far more emotional damage is done to kids who are obese. Far more health problems, for all their lives. Far more kids are obese than going hungry.
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm
> 
> http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body/overweight_obesity.html
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/children/
> 
> http://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/education/health_risks_for_overweight_children/
> 
> http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/Overweight-in-Children_UCM_304054_Article.jsp


Your snarky comments in posts adds nothing to the conversation. If you would actually like to discuss the the topic instead of trying to put me down I would be glad to have a conversation.


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> Does everyone own a car?


Some do, but I guess they just can't buy the gas.


But how did they get to PP?


----------



## Irish Pixie

po boy said:


> Some do, but I guess they just can't buy the gas.
> 
> 
> But how did they get to PP?


Before TX shut down the majority of them? There were obviously more of them, PP's are located where they are needed, so I imagine the women walked or took public transportation.


----------



## Heritagefarm

City Bound said:


> This source bellow says there are 53 million blacks in America. That makes roughly 22% of black americans on snap. Still a greater over all volume of users by percentage in relation to the over all volume of their community then the over all percentage of users in the white community.
> 
> Guess it all depends where the numbers are coming from and who is using them which was why myself and others objected to the OP.
> 
> Calculators and computers can only repeat what humans put into them. Check on the internet and you will find much conflicting data muddled up with much opinion and slant.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#White_Americans


That's still no where near the 50% number that was placed here earlier.


----------



## City Bound

Heritagefarm said:


> That's still no where near the 50% number that was placed here earlier.


depends on the data you find. You can find data to support any conclusion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> depends on the data you find. You can find data to support any conclusion.


Especially if it's searched for specifically and have a willingness to accept any source.


----------



## arabian knight

Or some just searching left leaning media outlets. LOL


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Especially if it's searched for specifically and have a willingness to accept any source.


 
Which was my very same suspicion when I read the OP.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Not everyone is eligible for Obamacare, some still use medicaid. Texas has done away with Medicaid so they could defund PP, they are self insured now. There are also the states that wouldn't enhance medicaid.
> 
> The "low income baby" thread details this information.


In spite of the outright false reporting in the link in the 'low income baby' thread, about TX doing away with Medicaid, the truth is that TX has actually increased funding for women's healthcare.......just not with organizations that promote or perform abortions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> In spite of the outright false reporting in the link in the 'low income baby' thread, about TX doing away with Medicaid, the truth is that TX has actually increased funding for women's healthcare.......just not with organizations that promote or perform abortions.


I stood corrected, and have pointed that out twice. Would you be satisfied if I wrote it in blood, scanned it, and posted it here? 

Making it harder for women to get needed birth control backfired.


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> I stood corrected, and have pointed that out twice. Would you be satisfied if I wrote it in blood, scanned it, and posted it here?



Depends. Whose blood?


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> Depends. Whose blood?


It doesn't matter. I have a feeling that nothing would truly satisfy unless I bled out completely.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> I stood corrected, and have pointed that out twice. Would you be satisfied if I wrote it in blood, scanned it, and posted it here?


Don't get your panties in a wad, Pixie. I saw your post admitting your error. I was merely making a point about what's being reported vs. what actually took place.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Don't get your panties in a wad, Pixie. I saw your post admitting your error. I was merely making a point about what's being reported vs. what actually took place.


Oh, so pointing it out was just snark. Got it.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, so pointing it out was just snark. Got it.


No. It was merely making a point.

Good grief. Lighten up.


----------



## AmericanStand

Txsteader said:


> Good grief. Lighten up.



Words of gold. 
Post of millenniums past and future.


----------



## dixiegal62

http://www.wkyc.com/news/nation-now/no-food-stamps-for-steak-or-lobster-ny-bill-says/47304158

ALBANY, N.Y. - A New York state lawmaker wants to block the use of food stamps for "luxury" items like high-end steaks, lobster and junk food.
Sen. Patty Ritchie, R-Oswegatchie, St. Lawrence County, introduced a bill Wednesday that would further restrict the types of purchases that can be made through the state's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as the food stamp program.


----------



## doozie

Regarding the above post, other states have proposed this too, ends up that enforcing it would cost quite a bit, and a Federal waiver would have to be granted to the State too. 
Not that it's a bad idea, but I would rather see someone eat steak than fatty sausage or fatty ground beef, etc. 
also, I don't really see many people, no matter how they pay, buying lobster when I go shopping in the Midwest at least.
I tend to mind my own business at the checkout.

Imagine taking this a step further and telling people that had the same health insurance as you that they could no longer smoke, drink, be overweight, or buy fattening foods. All in their best interest of course, keeping potential illness at bay, and insurance costs down. How would you feel about that?


----------



## arabian knight

What do you mean informing it costs money. Heck all the stars have to do is NOT out that items on the FS approval list when they enter things into their computer. it isn EAST as heck to not have lobster etc. on the FS stamps list at stores. They have to enter each time they get a shipment of food stuffs anyway. They have to make sure each item is on that kist now. No big deal leaving them off a lot. Just don't press then Enter Key.~! LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> What do you mean informing it costs money. Heck all the stars have to do is NOT out that items on the FS approval list when they enter things into their computer. it isn EAST as heck to not have lobster etc. on the FS stamps list at stores. They have to enter each time they get a shipment of food stuffs anyway. They have to make sure each item is on that kist now. No big deal leaving them off a lot. *Just don't press then Enter Key*.~! LOL


More should follow that advice


----------



## Txsteader

I can understand a restriction on luxury food items but I'd rather see recipients, particularly kids, eat steak rather than chips and sodas.

Anybody remember what the poor used to get from the government......'government' cheese or eggs? It beat going hungry but :yuck:.


----------



## no really

arabian knight said:


> What do you mean informing it costs money. Heck all the stars have to do is NOT out that items on the FS approval list when they enter things into their computer. it isn EAST as heck to not have lobster etc. on the FS stamps list at stores. They have to enter each time they get a shipment of food stuffs anyway. They have to make sure each item is on that kist now. No big deal leaving them off a lot. Just don't press then Enter Key.~! LOL



Isn't that basically the way WIC is set up?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

no really said:


> Isn't that basically the way WIC is set up?


It's my understanding there is a very specific list of items covered by WIC.
It shouldn't be too hard to use a similar system for SNAP or EBT


----------



## no really

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's my understanding there is a very specific list of items covered by WIC.
> It shouldn't be too hard to use a similar system for SNAP or EBT


WIC seems more IMHO nutrition focused, I do like the WIC program. Know several people that have used it. There is more on it than I thought. It is a program I support fully.


----------



## po boy

Txsteader said:


> I can understand a restriction on luxury food items but I'd rather see recipients, particularly kids, *eat steak rather than chips and sodas.
> *
> Anybody remember what the poor used to get from the government......'government' cheese or eggs? It beat going hungry but :yuck:.


Restrict chips and sodas would solve that problem. Chicken and pork is a better alternative than steak.


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> Before TX shut down the majority of them? There were obviously more of them, PP's are located where they are needed, so I imagine the women walked or took public transportation.


Kinda doubtful. 

The complaint has been PP was shut down in rural areas. Those lack public transportation and within walking distance for just a few people, most not seeking an abortion.


----------



## Evons hubby

doozie said:


> Regarding the above post, other states have proposed this too, ends up that enforcing it would cost quite a bit, and a Federal waiver would have to be granted to the State too.
> Not that it's a bad idea, but I would rather see someone eat steak than fatty sausage or fatty ground beef, etc.
> also, I don't really see many people, no matter how they pay, buying lobster when I go shopping in the Midwest at least.
> I tend to mind my own business at the checkout.
> 
> Imagine taking this a step further and telling people that had the same health insurance as you that they could no longer smoke, drink, be overweight, or buy fattening foods. All in their best interest of course, keeping potential illness at bay, and insurance costs down. How would you feel about that?


I'm not sure how it works now but when I was buying my own health insurance on the open market I paid higher premiums due to my preferred habits than I would have paid if I didn't smoke or drink.


----------



## doozie

I am unable to link the page, but it was from jsonline.com, Milwaukee Journal Sentinal titled Limits on food stamp choices would cost state millions. Something about the state being responsible for adding software to grocery checkout.

I believe they still ask if you are a smoker for health insurance. However I was trying to make a point on how intrusive it would be to limit your food choices or lifestyle for insurance purposes, as most people have health insurance. One members use effects all in the same plan you pay into.
Can you imagine being dropped because you smoked, or were overweight? 

I know I wouldn't like to be told what I can/should buy regardless of the reason.


----------



## MO_cows

no really said:


> WIC seems more IMHO nutrition focused, I do like the WIC program. Know several people that have used it. There is more on it than I thought. It is a program I support fully.


Besides the core nutrition items that WIC covers, there is also oversight. The child has to be examined every so often, gets vaccinations, etc. It is a much better program than the "free money" approach of SNAP. 

Way back when food stamps were really stamps or coupons, there was an informational insert with them in the envelope every month. Tips, recipes, strategies to stretch the food dollars and ensure good nutrition. That opportunity was lost when they went to the EBT cards. The cards were supposed to save a lot of money, by not paying for printing and a huge mailing every month, and also cut down on fraud. But the fraud continues and the program has been expanded so much that any savings from electronic delivery of benefits is gone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

no really said:


> WIC seems more IMHO nutrition focused, I do like the WIC program. Know several people that have used it. There is more on it than I thought. It is a program I support fully.


Yes, it's nutrition focused towards women with infant children who need high protein and calcium among other things


----------



## no really

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, it's nutrition focused towards women with infant children who need high protein and calcium among other things


I have a lot of concern what our population will look like 20 years from now, IMHO lifespans will be lessened and fertility will be low. 

I was reading an AMA article about high cholesterol in children under 5 to the extinct they were recommending routine evaluations.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> The cards were supposed to save a lot of money, by not paying for printing and a huge mailing every month, and also cut down on fraud. But the fraud continues and the program has been expanded so much that any savings from electronic delivery of benefits is gone.


EBT debit cards are not only more convenient, but since the card can't be used without the correct PIN it makes selling food credits more difficult. It used to be that people could simply tear food stamps out of the coupon book and sell them. Those food stamps were negotiable at any supermarket by anyone.


----------



## arabian knight

doozie said:


> I am unable to link the page, but it was from jsonline.com, Milwaukee Journal Sentinal titled Limits on food stamp choices would cost state millions. Something about the state being responsible for adding software to grocery checkout.


Need to get software????

They ALREADY have that software NOW. How else can you get a list of groceries some on FS list some not and get the Sales slip ALREADY printed out MINUS those itms not on the FS list??? And the Total is printed out that were on the FS list and what is owed for the items not on the list~! AND the Balance LEFT on the FS account is also printed on the Sales Slip....
You the PAY in cash for what the item or items not on the FS???
ALL done By the SOFTWARE the stories already HAVE~!
And why in the world would one take the word of a left leaning liberal mag in the first place without listening to THOSE that have First hand knowledge as to how things really are in the stores?
\
SO IF the software was not already in their computers how did ALL that info get printed on the slip in the first place? Answer Software already there.....

Items that are now NOT included are things like soap, TP, personal items toothpaste, things like aspirins etc. which are already not entered in, all they have to do is exclude a few others when this goes through. No Big Deal.
I got a gallon of milk and few other items when the sales slip printed out it Left Off the Milk from the FS account. OOPS The cashier said they forgot to ADD that item when it came in. 
SO I KNOW FIRST HAND how things work. She clicked a few keys and ADDED the gallon of milk back on the FS list. So it IS very easy for ANY store to Take away such items as pop and lobster from the FS acceptance list.


----------



## coolrunnin

The same people who lobbied for food stamps are going to lobby for their food products to remain on the approved list good luck getting your wishes.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> EBT debit cards are not only more convenient, but since the card can't be used without the correct PIN it makes selling food credits more difficult. It used to be that people could simply tear food stamps out of the coupon book and sell them. Those food stamps were negotiable at any supermarket by anyone.


And now they just sell the PIN along with the card. I know of people who do it. And some store owners get in on the act and collect the money from the system and give the customers cash back at cents on the dollar. There was a bust for that in this area recently, the store owner had scammed over $600,000 that way. 

Another scam, the "buy and return for refund". Friend of mine worked at K Mart, they had some "regulars" that would come in and buy expensive baby formula concentrate on their EBT card, then return it the next day for a cash refund. K Marts credit card processing system couldn't just put money back on the card, I don't know if any of them can. 

Fraud and abuse are rampant.


----------



## doozie

Arabian Knight, were you able to find the news story? 
It would require new software, as 2/3's of a persons benefits would then have to be used on healthy foods. I guess the software would be able to track purchases. A checker would not know what percentage of a recipients purchases were within the new guidelines without a software upgrade.


----------



## dixiegal62

Nevada said:


> EBT debit cards are not only more convenient, but since the card can't be used without the correct PIN it makes selling food credits more difficult. It used to be that people could simply tear food stamps out of the coupon book and sell them. Those food stamps were negotiable at any supermarket by anyone.


Now they just loan people their card and pin or go with them and then charge them for the food at a discount price.


----------



## Irish Pixie

doozie said:


> I am unable to link the page, but it was from jsonline.com, Milwaukee Journal Sentinal titled Limits on food stamp choices would cost state millions. Something about the state being responsible for adding software to grocery checkout.
> 
> I believe they still ask if you are a smoker for health insurance. However I was trying to make a point on how intrusive it would be to limit your food choices or lifestyle for insurance purposes, as most people have health insurance. One members use effects all in the same plan you pay into.
> Can you imagine being dropped because you smoked, or were overweight?
> 
> I know I wouldn't like to be told what I can/should buy regardless of the reason.


Is this the link, doozie? 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...illions-of-dollars-b99495676z1-302814621.html

"A GOP plan to limit how food stamps can be used to encourage people to eat more healthy options would cost millions of dollars â a hit to taxpayers that will make it tougher to pass the measure."


----------



## haley1

Old article, program is already in place and 15,000 reduction in people. We have less then 4% unemployment with lots of companies looking for people but some people just don't want to work.


----------



## po boy

dixiegal62 said:


> Now they just loan people their card and pin or go with them and then charge them for the food at a discount price.


Do the folks on snap keep the same card and pin # and the funds just added monthly?


----------



## AmericanStand

So when I can get lobster for 99cents a pound they want me to eat ravioliOs at $2.50 ?
Food , particularly "luxury" foods tend to be very sensitive to season , location and supply. 
I've bought steack for fess than hamburger.


----------



## dixiegal62

po boy said:


> Do the folks on snap keep the same card and pin # and the funds just added monthly?


I have no idea


----------



## Irish Pixie

haley1 said:


> Old article, program is already in place and 15,000 reduction in people. We have less then 4% unemployment with lots of companies looking for people but some people just don't want to work.


Do you have a link that Assembly Bill 177 was ratified by the Senate? I can't find it, and the current WI Foodshare program's website doesn't list food that that is banned, except hot food. Thanks.

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/foodshare/fsspending.htm


----------



## doozie

Yes, Irish Pixie, thanks for linking it. 
I know The Gov. In WI wanted to do drug tests on recipients, and even those on unemployment, because we all know you must be on drugs when you get laid off...
(sarcasm)


----------



## Irish Pixie

doozie said:


> Yes, Irish Pixie, thanks for linking it.
> I know The Gov. In WI wanted to do drug tests on recipients, and even those on unemployment, because we all know you must be on drugs when you get laid off...
> (sarcasm)


Do you know if the bill was passed? The WI Foodshare site doesn't indicate it was.


----------



## haley1

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you have a link that Assembly Bill 177 was ratified by the Senate? I can't find it, and the current WI Foodshare program's website doesn't list food that that is banned, except hot food. Thanks.
> 
> https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/foodshare/fsspending.htm


I talked to our speaker of the house on Saturday and that is what he told me


----------



## Irish Pixie

haley1 said:


> I talked to our speaker of the house on Saturday and that is what he told me


Link?


----------



## haley1

No link. Straight from living breathing person


----------



## Irish Pixie

haley1 said:


> No link. Straight from living breathing person


So it hasn't been ratified yet, right? Nothing on the WI Senate indicates it was made into law, so according to you he's assuming it will be passed? If so, it's essentially rumor at this point.


----------



## doozie

I am reading WI only passed a bill, but it has to be approved by the Senate, and then be allowed by Federal law, as SNAP is a federal program, and that will make it an unlikely law to be passed.


----------



## mmoetc

Irish Pixie said:


> So it hasn't been ratified yet, right? Nothing on the WI Senate indicates it was made into law, so according to you he's assuming it will be passed? If so, it's essentially rumor at this point.


To be fair the Wisconsin legislature voted on a couple of hundred pieces of legislation late into the night and early morning in an effort to get things done before getting back to their real jobs of fundraising and campaigning so he might be a bit fuzzy about what was really passed.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> What does black babies have to do with with me saying that my friends parents brought home people from the bar?


I know its a leap but we were discussing culture.


----------



## Fishindude

They made those EBT cards look like credit cards because paying with food stamps was apparently demeaning to the user, when others in the grocery line witnessed them paying with stamps. 

I think the EBT cards should be blaze orange so it is obvious.
Maybe is some felt a little shame when using food stamps, they might work to better their situation and get off of them.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> I know its a leap but we were discussing culture.


That is a snarky post. I quoted and responded to a particular post. Not you and not a culture.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Your snarky comments in posts adds nothing to the conversation. If you would actually like to discuss the the topic instead of trying to put me down I would be glad to have a conversation.


Now I have a question for you. 
How dues my posting of proof that obese children are far more at risk put you down? Do you not try to learn things? Links are a put down?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Now I have a question for you.
> How dues my posting of proof that obese children are far more at risk put you down? Do you not try to learn things? Links are a put down?


Your posts did not say that. Very simple. You provided no links about the two. Just about each in it's own right. When you do provide a link that discusses the difference between the two I will discuss it.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

I am all for food stamps for those who need a 'leg up' in tough times.
Those, who in the past, have paid into the system, for a certain time, are eligible for assistance.
Assistance. Not a way of life.

Bad things happen.
Death, Injury, Divorce, Crime, Job loss, etc.
Unforseen life events happen.

While receiving assistance, the system provides job training; how to make a resume; job leads, etc. 
But there has to be an 'end' to the assistance; otherwise it becomes a way of life.
Not assistance.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Before TX shut down the majority of them? There were obviously more of them, PP's are located where they are needed, so I imagine the women walked or took public transportation.


Really? Walked? Funny but ya gotta have someone drive ya home after the procedure...wonder how that worked b/4? Same as now?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? Walked? Funny but ya gotta have someone drive ya home after the procedure...wonder how that worked b/4? Same as now?


What procedure? Birth control?


----------



## Tricky Grama

doozie said:


> Regarding the above post, other states have proposed this too, ends up that enforcing it would cost quite a bit, and a Federal waiver would have to be granted to the State too.
> Not that it's a bad idea, but I would rather see someone eat steak than fatty sausage or fatty ground beef, etc.
> also, I don't really see many people, no matter how they pay, buying lobster when I go shopping in the Midwest at least.
> I tend to mind my own business at the checkout.
> 
> Imagine taking this a step further and telling people that had the same health insurance as you that they could no longer smoke, drink, be overweight, or buy fattening foods. All in their best interest of course, keeping potential illness at bay, and insurance costs down. How would you feel about that?


I'd like to see links explaining or verifying this. B/c when I worked we had a co. credit card. There were certain things that could not be bought w/it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

po boy said:


> Do the folks on snap keep the same card and pin # and the funds just added monthly?


The cards almost never change, and neither does the pin number. Funds are added automatically every month depending on eligibility. The department sends out a questionnaire routinely.


----------



## doozie

Tricky G. Post 587 has the link to a story on restrictions they were trying to pass in WI. Enforcing them would have been very costly.


----------



## arabian knight

po boy said:


> Do the folks on snap keep the same card and pin # and the funds just added monthly?


 Yes they keep the same PIN # and it just gets a new amount added every month, same thing is happening now with a lot of welfare payments they are getting a EBT card also and it is with a PIN # and the money is added every month. Same thing with those free cell phones. a 250 minute amount is added to them as well every month automatically as well.


----------



## arabian knight

Heritagefarm said:


> The cards almost never change, and neither does the pin number. Funds are added automatically every month depending on eligibility. The department sends out a questionnaire routinely.


In WI you are 'reviewed' once a year. You have to send in all sorts of paperwork to verify things. And have personal interview also. and send in Bank Statements, ilife insurance statement stating if you do have life insurance it is term not whole life.


----------



## arabian knight

doozie said:


> Tricky G. Post 587 has the link to a story on restrictions they were trying to pass in WI. Enforcing them would have been very costly.


Well trying to say the cost is for limiting FS use and enforcing a drug testing program is TWO Different things try not to lump them together, I also believe in the Drug testing part if it does become law. Even if it only changes a few it is a good thing, to get them weeded out. And some things have already passed and kicked a few off of FS already as they have to not only look for work but get work if they are able to do so physically. Also a good thing to happen.


----------



## doozie

Arabian Knight, both situations would add extra costs to the taxpayer.


----------



## no really

doozie said:


> Arabian Knight, both situations would add extra costs to the taxpayer.


Initially yes, but IMO it would pay off in the end with a healthier more involved population. I read a book about WW1, what really resonated is the shock of the leaders of the UK when they found how physically and mentally weak the lower rung of the population was. Bad nutrition, lacking education was debilitating to the future of their nation. 

That realization brought about social changes better living conditions, better nutrition and education. It changed the social landscape of the UK.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> I also believe in the Drug testing part if it does become law.


Why should families with drug problems be denied basic food help?


----------



## arabian knight

If some must ask, then this country REALLY is in deep doo doo.


----------



## AmericanStand

arabian knight said:


> I also believe in the Drug testing part if it does become law. .



What other rights would you take from them in exchange for food ?
Speech , the right to arms. , perhaps the should have to self incriminate , and house troops ?


----------



## AmericanStand

Nevada said:


> Why should families with drug problems be denied basic food help?



What makes you think it's a problem ? It's simply one more right the government has taken from the people.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> If some must ask, then this country REALLY is in deep doo doo.


Evidently I asked the wrong person, since you don't seem to have an answer.


----------



## arabian knight

n When a person is already on some government freebie you play by THEIR Rules and regs. Don't like those rules laws and regulations then Get The Heck OFF of that program~!


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> n When a person is already on some government freebie you play by THEIR Rules and regs. Don't like those rules laws and regulations then Get The Heck OFF of that program~!


But what's the objective of denying basic food help? Do you think hunger is the answer to the drug problem?


----------



## mmoetc

arabian knight said:


> n When a person is already on some government freebie you play by THEIR Rules and regs. Don't like those rules laws and regulations then Get The Heck OFF of that program~!


I think drug and alcohol testing and limits as to what foodstuffs can be bought by those receiving government disability or social security are a great idea, don't you. Or is it only some government freebies you wish to have controlled?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> But what's the objective of denying basic food help? Do you think hunger is the answer to the drug problem?


States that do drug testing as a prerequisite to welfare benefits have found very few of them are using drugs.

It could be argued giving the benefits and requiring testing actually cuts drug usage


----------



## mmoetc

Orb they spent a lot if money solving a largely non existent problem. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/1...ests.html/RS=^ADA_01YCw8DTSq9C6JPO2PxAyWySrA-


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> States that do drug testing as a prerequisite to welfare benefits have found very few of them are using drugs.
> 
> It could be argued giving the benefits and requiring testing actually cuts drug usage


It could be, but it would probably cut drug usage to do the same for disability & SS recipients, as mmoetc pointed out. For that matter, why should SS recipients be allowed to drink wine? Do you want your tax dollars to be going to people who are just relaxing and having a good time?

I guess the question is; why only food stamp recipients?


----------



## po boy

Bearfootfarm said:


> States that do drug testing as a prerequisite to welfare benefits have found very few of them are using drugs.
> 
> It could be argued giving the benefits and requiring testing actually cuts drug usage


They drug test a small %. 

It could cut the number applying if they know they will fail drug testing..


----------



## Nevada

po boy said:


> They drug test a small %.
> 
> It could cut the number applying if they know they will fail drug testing..


Just think of the number of disability & retirement recipients that could be cut if we tested for drugs & alcohol. We should also probably test for tobacco and STDs while we're at it.


----------



## mnn2501

Nevada said:


> Why should families with drug problems be denied basic food help?


If they have money to buy drugs, they have money to buy food.


----------



## Nevada

mnn2501 said:


> If they have money to buy drugs, they have money to buy food.


Then why do drug addicts typically live as indigents? Let's not forget that the medical community considers addiction to be a disease, and that they often have kids.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Orb they spent a lot if money solving a largely non existent problem. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/1...ests.html/RS=^ADA_01YCw8DTSq9C6JPO2PxAyWySrA-


 
Or, the ones, who know that they won't pass the drug test, don't bother?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> I think drug and alcohol testing and limits as to what foodstuffs can be bought by those receiving government disability or social security are a great idea, don't you. Or is it only some government freebies you wish to have controlled?


 Sounds wonderful to me. :goodjob:


----------



## arabian knight

Farmerga said:


> Sounds wonderful to me. :goodjob:


I have no problem with that happening either.


----------



## Farmerga

arabian knight said:


> I have no problem with that happening either.


I would only have one caveat. Make payments, into those programs, voluntary.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> I have no problem with that happening either.


You won't see it. The government has more to gain by letting retired & disabled people drink. After all, if people want to drink themselves to death and end their SS payments, why should the government stand in their way?


----------



## po boy

mmoetc said:


> Orb they spent a lot if money solving a largely non existent problem. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/1...ests.html/RS=^ADA_01YCw8DTSq9C6JPO2PxAyWySrA-


I wonder if they drug tested all that applied during that period or just a small %.

This article about NC states that it failed, but when you read the article there were 7600 people screened (asked a question)but only 150 selected for the drug test, and only 80 showed up. The 70 that didn't show up were denied benefits and about 20 tested positive and were denied or had benefits cut. So, more than 50% of those tested were considered positive. The article says only about 1% of those screened were positive. Screening and testing are two different things.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> That is a snarky post. I quoted and responded to a particular post. Not you and not a culture.


Is something bothering you today? B/c my post was meant to bemean ME for going to that leap. Gosh. Some are REEEElly touchy.


----------



## wr

Farmerga said:


> Or, the ones, who know that they won't pass the drug test, don't bother?


They typically end up stealing or dealing to support themselves and their habits and the kids end up in the system anyhow.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Is something bothering you today? B/c my post was meant to bemean ME for going to that leap. Gosh. Some are REEEElly touchy.


Well I guess your post failed in your attempt. Kindly keep your remarks to my posts and not my feelings .


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Your posts did not say that. Very simple. You provided no links about the two. Just about each in it's own right. When you do provide a link that discusses the difference between the two I will discuss it.


All the 'info' on "food insecurity" claims 1 in 7 'COULD' be food insecure. 
Data proved that 1 in 3 children are obese.


----------



## Farmerga

wr said:


> They typically end up stealing or dealing to support themselves and their habits and the kids end up in the system anyhow.


 If they are so zooked out on drugs that they don't feed their kids, the kids should be "in the system" and they should be in prison.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> All the 'info' on "food insecurity" claims 1 in 7 'COULD' be food insecure.
> Data proved that 1 in 3 children are obese.


That does not contrast and compare to the malnourished children due to lack of food. I could post a hundred links and studies about that but it will still not compare the two.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Rome the 1st 2 links:

Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years.1, 2
The percentage of children aged 6&#8211;11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 18% in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12&#8211;19 years who were obese increased from 5% to nearly 21% over the same period.1, 2
In 2012, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.1
Overweight is defined as having excess body weight for a particular height from fat, muscle, bone, water, or a combination of these factors.3 Obesity is defined as having excess body fat.4
Overweight and obesity are the result of &#8220;caloric imbalance&#8221;&#8212;too few calories expended for the amount of calories consumed&#8212;and are affected by various genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors.5,6

The percentage of overweight children in the United States is growing at an alarming rate, with 1 out of 3 kids now considered overweight or obese.

someone can post links to # of kids malnourished...doubting that comes close to 1 in 3, wouldn't leave much room for the norm, would it?


----------



## painterswife

Childhood obesity can be reversed by diet. Mental and physical deficiencies during a child's growth period can not all be reversed by diet.


----------



## Michael W. Smith

But there is ALOT of abuse of the system.

I know a young couple who several years ago received food stamps as they had two young children. The husband was employed in his Father's business as an "assistant". The Mother didn't work other than working very minally part timefor the Father-In-Law's business. 

They received formula for the baby which they then promtly sold on EBAY as their baby didn't like the formula being provided.

I'm quite certain they finangled the salary rate of the husband to ensure they were on the system. I'm quite certain the Mother was paid in cash for the little work she did.

As the kids got older, the Mother got a part-time job. (She was asked to work Full-time but refused as she wanted to be at home with the kids several days a week.)

That same couple is now divorced. The Mother and kids still receive food stamps and the Mother was only working part time - again, because she wanted to be home with the kids several days a week - but both kids are now in school.

The Mother and kids live with family in an "apartment" in the family's house. They continue to get food stamps since the Mother only works part-time - by HER choice.

Does this sound right?


----------



## Farmerga

There should be many many hoops through which to jump in order to receive/keep receiving government assistance. There should also be specialized stores where food may be purchased. These stores should only offer nutritious food, no junk.


----------



## arabian knight

Farmerga said:


> There should be many many hoops through which to jump in order to receive/keep receiving government assistance. There should also be specialized stores where food may be purchased. These stores should only offer nutritious food, no junk.


Many many farmers markets have been taking FS cards.
At $49,234, last year Dane County Farmersâ Market (DCFM) customers spent the most federal food assistance dollars of any market in Wisconsin. The Fondy Farmersâ Market of Milwaukee came in second, at just over $30,000 for the year.
That is a whole bunch of GOOD food being bought with Food Stamp dollars.


----------



## mnn2501

Nevada said:


> Then why do drug addicts typically live as indigents? Let's not forget that the medical community considers addiction to be a disease, and that they often have kids.


indigents - their choice
addiction a disease - sorry it's not
Kids - take them away


----------



## doozie

I don't have proof, but failing a drug test would not have made anyone ineligible for benefits, but would require being enlisted in a drug treatment program to keep receiving benefits.


----------



## mreynolds

Michael W. Smith said:


> But there is ALOT of abuse of the system.
> 
> I know a young couple who several years ago received food stamps as they had two young children. The husband was employed in his Father's business as an "assistant". The Mother didn't work other than working very minally part timefor the Father-In-Law's business.
> 
> They received formula for the baby which they then promtly sold on EBAY as their baby didn't like the formula being provided.
> 
> I'm quite certain they finangled the salary rate of the husband to ensure they were on the system. I'm quite certain the Mother was paid in cash for the little work she did.
> 
> As the kids got older, the Mother got a part-time job. (She was asked to work Full-time but refused as she wanted to be at home with the kids several days a week.)
> 
> That same couple is now divorced. The Mother and kids still receive food stamps and the Mother was only working part time - again, because she wanted to be home with the kids several days a week - but both kids are now in school.
> 
> The Mother and kids live with family in an "apartment" in the family's house. They continue to get food stamps since the Mother only works part-time - by HER choice.
> 
> Does this sound right?


Sounds like about 70% of snap recipients by my estimation. But perhaps for not the reasons you may suspect.


----------



## Nevada

mreynolds said:


> Sounds like about 70% of snap recipients by my estimation. But perhaps for not the reasons you may suspect.


Law enforcement takes food stamp (SNAP) fraud seriously. In fact it's headline new here in Las Vegas today.

http://news3lv.com/news/nation-worl...tah-arizona-arrested-in-food-stamp-fraud-case


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> It could be, but it would probably cut drug usage to do the same for disability & SS recipients, as mmoetc pointed out. For that matter, why should SS recipients be allowed to drink wine? Do you want your tax dollars to be going to* people who are just relaxing and having a good time*?
> 
> I guess the question is; why only food stamp recipients?


They are testing for illegal drug use, not drinking
If they have money to buy illegal drugs, they don't need help buying food.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mmoetc said:


> Orb they spent a lot if money solving a largely non existent problem. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/1...ests.html/RS=^ADA_01YCw8DTSq9C6JPO2PxAyWySrA-


I imagine it's hard to really know if they save any money.
There might be more applying for benefits if they knew they wouldn't be tested, or it may actually be forcing people to not do the drugs so they can get the benefits. 

That saves money spent on law enforcement and courts and reduces crime, but those costs aren't counted


----------



## mreynolds

Nevada said:


> Law enforcement takes food stamp (SNAP) fraud seriously. In fact it's headline new here in Las Vegas today.
> 
> http://news3lv.com/news/nation-worl...tah-arizona-arrested-in-food-stamp-fraud-case


I know this. Read my post again without a slanted attitude and get the real message. Then get back to me.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are testing for illegal drug use, not drinking
> If they have money to buy illegal drugs, they don't need help buying food.


But some think that we should let them do illegal things and be on the dole. Its just inhumane not to let them be it seems. 

I agree that illegal drugs cost way more than food. Even the cheap stuff.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are testing for illegal drug use, not drinking
> If they have money to buy illegal drugs, they don't need help buying food.


I thought the rub was that people were having a good time on your tax money. This is about drug enforcement?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Nevada said:


> Why should families with drug problems be denied basic food help?


This is where I left from other liberals. People on drugs should be identified. Going hungry might motivate them to avoid drugs.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> This is where I left from other liberals. People on drugs should be identified. Going hungry might motivate them to avoid drugs.


I'd be fine with this if kids didn't go hungry. No kid should suffer because their parent(s) are irresponsible.


----------



## mreynolds

Heritagefarm said:


> This is where I left from other liberals. People on drugs should be identified. Going hungry might motivate them to avoid drugs.


And one of the problems is that they loan their card for 50 cents on the dollar and buy drugs anyway instead of food. Some use SNAP as a means to get drugs. I have even been offered that deal before from someone I didn't even know standing by the door at Krogers. Some get bold when they are bad off.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> I'd be fine with this if kids didn't go hungry. No kid should suffer because their parent(s) are irresponsible.


But understand this. If they are bad on drugs their kids are going hungry more than not anyway. Its better to find out which ones (kids) are having to go through that than to just hope they are getting fed.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> I'd be fine with this if kids didn't go hungry. No kid should suffer because their parent(s) are irresponsible.


Well, maybe once they were drug tested, if they're stupid enough to get tested while active, then their kids might be repossessed. 



mreynolds said:


> And one of the problems is that they loan their card for 50 cents on the dollar and buy drugs anyway instead of food. Some use SNAP as a means to get drugs. I have even been offered that deal before from someone I didn't even know standing by the door at Krogers. Some get bold when they are bad off.


Yes. But this happens with anything, really.


----------



## mreynolds

Nevada said:


> I thought the rub was that people were having a good time on your tax money. This is about drug enforcement?


Well, be fair, you were the one that brought up having a good time on tax payer money. 

And disability

and SS


----------



## mreynolds

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes. But this happens with anything, really.


Agreed. And its not even the biggest problem with SNAP imo. Or any other assistance program.


----------



## Nevada

mreynolds said:


> Well, be fair, you were the one that brought up having a good time on tax payer money.


To be fair, I buy wine with taxpayer money.


----------



## mreynolds

Nevada said:


> To be fair, I buy wine with taxpayer money.


That's great. And legal. If I get up that way I may send a pm and help get some of my money back. 

Here is the difference. You are getting money that once you helped someone else drink their wine too. I will help you drink yours and maybe someone else will help buy my Shiner Bock. I only need about 6-12 a month so it can be a min wage worker even. 

So getting people off SNAP and getting them working and confident in themselves is why I am so adamant about this subject.


----------



## po boy

Nevada said:


> To be fair, I buy wine with taxpayer money.


If it's welfare you do. If's its SS based on your income, it's your money.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> To be fair, I buy wine with taxpayer money.


Someone just sent me a 5th of Templeton Rye as a "thank you", and I suspect he's a taxpayer too


----------



## AmericanStand

How about we do drug and alcohol testing where it will really help ?
And stupid testing too stupid is really dangerous. 
Then if you cant past those weekly random tests you cant use highways built with tax money.


----------



## flewism

AmericanStand said:


> How about we do drug and alcohol testing where it will really help ?
> And stupid testing too stupid is really dangerous.
> Then if you cant past those weekly random tests you cant use highways built with tax money.


 Highways are built by people that actually pay taxes.
So your statement is that if a person requires public assistance to support his/herself and dependents because said person does not have the skill set to do so or views their liabilities as too great that drug and alcohol testing should not be a requirement to maintain public support for themselves and dependents. 
So what should the requirements be other than need?

SS retirement benefits are not part if this either, they all ready paid.
People on public assistance do pay for roads in their fuel taxes.


----------



## spiritbear

flewism said:


> Highways are built by people that actually pay taxes.



Everyone pays taxes. Anyone in this country does whether citizen, foreign national or illegal. There are many more taxes than the income tax. Everything you have is taxed. Everything in our lives is either regulated or taxed in some way by government. Nothing is beyond its grasp.


----------



## vicki in NW OH

Many, if not most, of those who receive SNAP benefits ARE working. Sometimes doing the most important of jobs, such as nurse's aides and childcare workers. 

http://www.hungercoalition.org/food-stamp-myths


----------



## flewism

vicki in NW OH said:


> Many, if not most, of those who receive SNAP benefits ARE working. Sometimes doing the most important of jobs, such as nurse's aides and childcare workers.
> 
> http://www.hungercoalition.org/food-stamp-myths





spiritbear said:


> Everyone pays taxes. Anyone in this country does whether citizen, foreign national or illegal. There are many more taxes than the income tax. Everything you have is taxed. Everything in our lives is either regulated or taxed in some way by government. Nothing is beyond its grasp.


 I agree with all, So what should the requirements be other than need?


----------



## AmericanStand

Flewism I think you read me wrong. I don't think there should be requirements for welfare other than need.


----------



## flewism

AmericanStand said:


> Flewism I think you read me wrong. I don't think there should be requirements for welfare other than need.


 No I didn't, I do believe there should be additional requirements other than need for persons that have been in the system multiple years or even decades. To me periodical testing for illegal drugs or excessive alcohol use is not that much of a burden to maintain benefits. 

I'll pee in a cup all the time if I'm getting paid.


----------



## MO_cows

Well here is one more answer to the question "Who gets food stamps?". A multi million dollar fraud of the system. Alleged of course.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...aders-arrested-utah-food-stamp-fraud-37146421


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> Well here is one more answer to the question "Who gets food stamps?". A multi million dollar fraud of the system. Alleged of course.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...aders-arrested-utah-food-stamp-fraud-37146421


Interesting how this LDS splinter group wants nothing to do with government, then exploits a government program that way.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> Interesting how this LDS splinter group wants nothing to do with government, then exploits a government program that way.


Maybe they saw it as "revenge" for all their other problems with the government:shrug:.


----------



## mreynolds

vicki in NW OH said:


> Many, if not most, of those who receive SNAP benefits ARE working. Sometimes doing the most important of jobs, such as nurse's aides and childcare workers.
> 
> http://www.hungercoalition.org/food-stamp-myths


And that was my point a few pages back. The problem is why does the government want to keep them there? It's very hard to get off once you are on it. It's a simple fix too and no one has to go hungry.


----------



## wr

mreynolds said:


> And that was my point a few pages back. The problem is why does the government want to keep them there? It's very hard to get off once you are on it. It's a simple fix too and no one has to go hungry.


I'd be quite interested in your solution.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> To be fair, I buy wine with taxpayer money.


I rarely buy wine with anyone's money but my S.S. lets me to buy a better grade of bourbon than I could without it.


----------



## Evons hubby

mreynolds said:


> And that was my point a few pages back. The problem is why does the government want to keep them there? It's very hard to get off once you are on it. It's a simple fix too and no one has to go hungry.


Why does the government keep them there? Poor people are easy to manipulate.... They will vote for free stuff!


----------



## mreynolds

wr said:


> I'd be quite interested in your solution.


When I worked in their homes I heard hundreds of Snap people say that they could not afford to get a raise at their jobs. The way the system has it set up is for you to stay down not assist you to get out of poverty. 

If someone say makes ten an hour. That's 400 a week full time. lets say they get 400 month snap. Don't know how close that is at all but just for giggles. Say they do a good on the job and get a dollar raise which is another 160 month. But the snap gets cut by 200 or maybe more. Meaning doing good on the job means less money to support your family. 

You have this done to you for 50 years and you can see why people lose heart. Drugs become a way of self medicating because its cheaper than the Dr. Doing poorly on the job becomes a way of life because you don't want to lose money for food. 

I advocate cutting that snap only by half of added income so that a raise is something to feel good about and means better living and something to work toward. I believe that 90% of everyone wants to better themselves to some degree. Lets let them have a chance. 

If I am elected as POTUS, I will have that sliding scale changed by Jan. 31 of 2017. Write me in. I warn you though, I will retire on Feb. 1st


----------



## mreynolds

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why does the government keep them there? Poor people are easy to manipulate.... They will vote for free stuff!


because they want votes. 

All people are easy to manipulate but hungry people are even easier

Everyone likes free


But people by and large are just the same basic animals we always were. Basic needs met, companionship and wanting to better ourselves.


----------



## wr

mreynolds said:


> When I worked in their homes I heard hundreds of Snap people say that they could not afford to get a raise at their jobs. The way the system has it set up is for you to stay down not assist you to get out of poverty.
> 
> If someone say makes ten an hour. That's 400 a week full time. lets say they get 400 month snap. Don't know how close that is at all but just for giggles. Say they do a good on the job and get a dollar raise which is another 160 month. But the snap gets cut by 200 or maybe more. Meaning doing good on the job means less money to support your family.
> 
> You have this done to you for 50 years and you can see why people lose heart. Drugs become a way of self medicating because its cheaper than the Dr. Doing poorly on the job becomes a way of life because you don't want to lose money for food.
> 
> I advocate cutting that snap only by half of added income so that a raise is something to feel good about and means better living and something to work toward. I believe that 90% of everyone wants to better themselves to some degree. Lets let them have a chance.
> 
> If I am elected as POTUS, I will have that sliding scale changed by Jan. 31 of 2017. Write me in. I warn you though, I will retire on Feb. 1st


Our system is a lot different than yours and it works on the idea that people may need a hand but it's generally not a lifestyle. 

Single moms do get a pass until kids are a certain age and then the need to work at least part time and that amount should increase as the kids get older. 

It pays pretty crappy but if you do work, you're rewarded rather than penalized. You simply claim what you make and they deduct from the next cheque but there is a certain amount you retain before they deduct. If you run out of money before the end of the month, you need to go to the food bank or make an application for emergency relief funds. Diapers and formula are available by 'prescription' and can be picked up at any pharmacy. 

Singles and able bodied are expected to look for work and you have to submit forms showing where you have applied and they can contact those places to ensure the jobs being applied for are suitable for the applicant. 

We do have a certain number who cheat the system but it pays poorly and not overly comfortable. Subsidized housing is difficult to get into up here and is not an automatic given for anyone on welfare and the last I heard, a single physically able adult only would receive less than $500.

Mothers with handicapped children, people with disabilities and those unable to work fall under other categories and the system is quite a bit different than our actual welfare system.


----------



## mreynolds

WR, that sounds like a sensible assistance program to me. Our government would rather spend excess money on propaganda to make the "truth" something else so we can all fight about what it "is". 

Fraud will always be in the picture no matter what to some degree. But with the law of averages, the less people on assistance the less the fraud.


----------



## hoddedloki

WR, sounds like a decent system, but for the minor problem of single moms. Having lived in somewhat less than savory areas, I can tell you that unless you set the no work until you child is this old bar very low, there will be many who simply keep having kids, and never have to work. This is one of the root problems of the system, it uses the assumption that single mothers will stop having children out of wedlock when they are on assistance. That assumption does not hold anymore, as bastardy is no longer socially frowned upon, and instead, you get those who keep having kids, and keep collecting welfare.

Regards,
Loki


----------



## AmericanStand

The rule should very simple , if you concive a kid while on welfare you go to jail. With the exception of those on contraception implants. 
My logic is that if you are on welfare you know you can't support yourself or others so having another means you are not planning on taking care of it. 
That's child abuse. 
It's reasonable to send child abusers to jail and take their kids away.


----------



## Heritagefarm

AmericanStand said:


> The rule should very simple , if you have a kid while on welfare you go to jail. With the exception of those on contraception implants.
> My logic is that if you are on welfare you know you can't support yourself or others so having another means you are not planning on taking care of it.
> That's child abuse.
> It's reasonable to send child abusers to jail and take their kids away.


That seems callous. How do we know that person did not get pregnant while in a financially stable position and then fall into hardship medterm? There is no blanket rule, no easy fix for this system. Using one size fits all rulings won't work well.


----------



## doozie

You can't be serious...does the male involved get to go to jail too? Where do the kids go in your situation? How does this rectify anything?


----------



## wr

hoddedloki said:


> WR, sounds like a decent system, but for the minor problem of single moms. Having lived in somewhat less than savory areas, I can tell you that unless you set the no work until you child is this old bar very low, there will be many who simply keep having kids, and never have to work. This is one of the root problems of the system, it uses the assumption that single mothers will stop having children out of wedlock when they are on assistance. That assumption does not hold anymore, as bastardy is no longer socially frowned upon, and instead, you get those who keep having kids, and keep collecting welfare.
> 
> Regards,
> Loki


I'm sure we have cheats too but even mothers with kids are encouraged to work by way of the financial incentive as well as job training and educational incentives so we really don't have as many simply milking the system.


----------



## Sourdough

:bdh::bdh::bdh::bdh::bdh::bdh::bdh::bdh:


----------



## po boy

doozie said:


> You can't be serious...does the male involved get to go to jail too? Where do the kids go in your situation? How does this rectify anything?


 If he is not supporting the mother and/or the child, garnish his wages. I would not have a problem with jail, if he won't work.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Childhood obesity can be reversed by diet. Mental and physical deficiencies during a child's growth period can not all be reversed by diet.


What does that have to do w/'food insecurity'. Clearly they've stated its NOT starvation.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why does the government keep them there? Poor people are easy to manipulate.... They will vote for free stuff!


Post of the day award.


----------



## Nevada

Tricky Grama said:


> What does that have to do w/'food insecurity'. Clearly they've stated its NOT starvation.


Then they're wrong. People who are food insecure can certainly starve.


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> Then they're wrong. People who are food insecure can certainly starve.


True, but, in the U.S. if someone starves, they usually have done it to themselves (eating disorder) or someone has done it to them. (adult locking a child in a room and not feeding them) in either case, throwing more money at it would make little difference.


----------



## MO_cows

AmericanStand said:


> The rule should very simple , if you have a kid while on welfare you go to jail. With the exception of those on contraception implants.
> My logic is that if you are on welfare you know you can't support yourself or others so having another means you are not planning on taking care of it.
> That's child abuse.
> It's reasonable to send child abusers to jail and take their kids away.


It is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It is cheaper to pay benefits than to pay for imprisoned parents plus foster care for kids.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Tricky Grama said:


> What does that have to do w/'food insecurity'. Clearly they've stated its NOT starvation.


Take school lunches for instance. Perhaps if we fed kids better, we would not have to pay for their healthcare for obesity, cancer, etc.


----------



## AmericanStand

MO_cows said:


> It is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It is cheaper to pay benefits than to pay for imprisoned parents plus foster care for kids.



Not foster adopted. 
Besides I'm pretty sure you won't have to pay for many in prison before the behavior changes.


----------



## AmericanStand

doozie said:


> You can't be serious...does the male involved get to go to jail too? Where do the kids go in your situation? How does this rectify anything?



Of course not he isn't responceable for having kids. As so many women here make abundantly clear it's her body her choice.


----------



## AmericanStand

Heritagefarm said:


> That seems callous. How do we know that person did not get pregnant while in a financially stable position and then fall into hardship medterm? There is no blanket rule, no easy fix for this system. Using one size fits all rulings won't work well.



Good point I should have said conceive.


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> True, but, in the U.S. if someone starves, they usually have done it to themselves (eating disorder) or someone has done it to them. (adult locking a child in a room and not feeding them) in either case, throwing more money at it would make little difference.


The kindest thing I can say about your post is that you evidently don't understand the problem.


----------



## no really

wr said:


> Our system is a lot different than yours and it works on the idea that people may need a hand but it's generally not a lifestyle.
> 
> Single moms do get a pass until kids are a certain age and then the need to work at least part time and that amount should increase as the kids get older.
> 
> It pays pretty crappy but if you do work, you're rewarded rather than penalized. You simply claim what you make and they deduct from the next cheque but there is a certain amount you retain before they deduct. If you run out of money before the end of the month, you need to go to the food bank or make an application for emergency relief funds. Diapers and formula are available by 'prescription' and can be picked up at any pharmacy.
> 
> Singles and able bodied are expected to look for work and you have to submit forms showing where you have applied and they can contact those places to ensure the jobs being applied for are suitable for the applicant.
> 
> We do have a certain number who cheat the system but it pays poorly and not overly comfortable. Subsidized housing is difficult to get into up here and is not an automatic given for anyone on welfare and the last I heard, a single physically able adult only would receive less than $500.
> 
> Mothers with handicapped children, people with disabilities and those unable to work fall under other categories and the system is quite a bit different than our actual welfare system.


Can Canada send someone to DC to explain and train our people? Pretty please?


----------



## mreynolds

no really said:


> Can Canada send someone to DC to explain and train our people? Pretty please?


Was thinking exact same thing.


----------



## wr

no really said:


> Can Canada send someone to DC to explain and train our people? Pretty please?



I'd be happy to come down and train but I doubt if anyone would listen.


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> Of course not he isn't responceable for having kids. As so many women here make abundantly clear it's her body her choice.


As it's _his_ choice not to insist on and use birth control himself. Do you honestly think that the woman is the only one responsible for a pregnancy?


----------



## coolrunnin

Irish Pixie said:


> As it's _his_ choice not to insist on and use birth control himself. Do you honestly think that the woman is the only one responsible for a pregnancy?


But, but but condoms don't work you have said so many times.


----------



## Irish Pixie

coolrunnin said:


> But, but but condoms don't work you have said so many times.


I never said they don't work, I said they are less effective than other types of birth control. C'mon, you know what I said so why make up that I said condoms don't work?


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> The kindest thing I can say about your post is that you evidently don't understand the problem.



Ok, show me the pictures, show me the medical proof of a person, in 2016 in the US who starved because of unavailability of food.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Then they're wrong. People who are food insecure can certainly starve.


Just for grins and giggles... How many people have starved to death in the U.S. In the past decade?


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> As it's _his_ choice not to insist on and use birth control himself. Do you honestly think that the woman is the only one responsible for a pregnancy?



Yes she is the only one with a choice.


----------



## mnn2501

Nevada said:


> The kindest thing I can say about your post is that you evidently don't understand the problem.


Perhaps you could prove the poster incorrect instead.
Frankly I think they nailed it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> Yes she is the only one with a choice.


Are you saying that men aren't capable of using birth control themselves? And/or can't insist on their partner using it? 

If you're referring to a pregnancy, yes a woman is the only one that can make a choice for her body. Men can when they become pregnant. Fair is fair.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that men aren't capable of using birth control themselves? And/or can't insist on their partner using it?
> 
> If you're referring to a pregnancy, yes a woman is the only one that can make a choice for her body. Men can when they become pregnant. Fair is fair.


So following the logic of "choice = responsibility" men cannot be held responsible for the child's care and maintainence since the woman is the one making the choice. Good luck with that argument flying in front of any judge!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So following the logic of "choice = responsibility" men cannot be held responsible for the child's care and maintainence since the woman is the one making the choice. Good luck with that argument flying in front of any judge!


I never said that, never even implied it. A man's choice is either using or not using birth control or just not having sex. Using birth control himself at least lessens his chances of having to pay child support, right?


----------



## Sourdough

Who do you think gets more free stuff........??? The POOR, or the Wealthy, or the Middle Class Workers........???



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why does the government keep them there? Poor people are easy to manipulate.... They will vote for free stuff!


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> Ok, show me the pictures, show me the medical proof of a person, in 2016 in the US who starved because of unavailability of food.


I know this from personal experience when I was a firefighter in rural California. According to law enforcement I've talked to, I haven't even seen the worst of it.

I think the saddest case I saw was a woman in her early 80s. I got called to her house for a medical emergency. She was mostly bed-ridden and lived alone. She was in moderate distress, but I wasn't sure why. She had no idea about her prescription meds and I didn't see any pill bottles around, so that was probably a lot of her problem. Her blood pressure was a little high, but she was otherwise stable. I was confident that she was mostly just frightened, but obviously needed to be seen by a doctor. I saw to it that she got an ambulance ride to the county hospital.

I didn't go in with the ambulance because I wanted to talk to the sheriff deputy that I called to secure the house. I didn't really need the sheriff (I could have just locked-up behind myself) but I wanted him to see what I found while I was looking for her meds. The only thing I could find in the house for her to eat was a partial 5 pound bag of flour.

The deputy was a friend that I had worked with before. When I showed him he said, "Oh yeah, she's living on flour paste. They put flour in a bowl with a little water and salt. It keeps them alive." He said he would visit the ER and arrange for a social worker to be assigned to her case.

I was terribly haunted by that call. I still am. I'm not only disturbed for her, I also wonder how many others there are out there living on flour paste.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada for all you know that lady had money and was just senile and wouldn't spend it. Or couldn't remember how to cook any more, or didn't have the strength any more. An elderly person who isn't functioning on all cylinders anymore would be better served by Meals on Wheels than food stamps. I know someone who volunteers with them. Having someone check on the person everyday and bring a ready to eat balanced meal with a smile does more for them than putting money on a card ever could. They might have trouble getting to the store to spend it, hauling in the groceries and preparing the food due to age, physical and mental shortcomings as they age.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> Nevada for all you know that lady had money and was just senile and wouldn't spend it. Or couldn't remember how to cook any more, or didn't have the strength any more. An elderly person who isn't functioning on all cylinders anymore would be better served by Meals on Wheels than food stamps. I know someone who volunteers with them. Having someone check on the person everyday and bring a ready to eat balanced meal with a smile does more for them than putting money on a card ever could. They might have trouble getting to the store to spend it, hauling in the groceries and preparing the food due to age, physical and mental shortcomings as they age.


Yes, I didn't know as much as I would have liked to have known about her situation. That made it all the harder to deal with. But the reality that this woman was living on flour & water was undeniable. It's not easy to go home and eat a big dinner knowing that.

It would have been easier on me if I had a defense mechanism that allowed me to tell myself that she had resources that she wasn't managing properly, as you suggest she might. I guess that's just not me.

But I'm confident that a social worker put her in a workable situation.


----------



## coolrunnin

Nevada said:


> Yes, I didn't know as much as I would have liked to have known about her situation. That made it all the harder to deal with. But the reality that this woman was living on flour & water was undeniable. It's not easy to go home and eat a big dinner knowing that.
> 
> It would have been easier on me if I had a defense mechanism that allowed me to tell myself that she had resources that she wasn't managing properly, as you suggest she might. I guess that's just not me.
> 
> But I'm confident that a social worker put her in a workable situation.


Did you ever go back and check on her?


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> Yes, I didn't know as much as I would have liked to have known about her situation. That made it all the harder to deal with. But the reality that this woman was living on flour & water was undeniable. It's not easy to go home and eat a big dinner knowing that.
> 
> It would have been easier on me if I had a defense mechanism that allowed me to tell myself that she had resources that she wasn't managing properly, as you suggest she might. I guess that's just not me.
> 
> But I'm confident that a social worker put her in a workable situation.


Hopefully she had family and the social worker brought to their attention how she was living so they could provide the help she needed. Probably the poor old dear didn't ask for any help herself because she didn't want to end up in "the home". People of that generation, lots of them would rather die than go into a nursing home, especially the "county" home because they were ashamed to be considered indigent. Prolonging her life at the expense of her dignity and pride - she might not consider that doing her a favor.


----------



## Nevada

coolrunnin said:


> Did you ever go back and check on her?


No, I never followed up. I think there's maybe a 60% probability that she went to a facility and never returned home.

It's hard to say. It depends on what she was like after stabilizing her on meds.


----------



## wr

coolrunnin said:


> But, but but condoms don't work you have said so many times.


My sister worked as a condom tester many years ago and she claims the failure rate is much higher than we are led to believe.


----------



## MO_cows

wr said:


> My sister worked as a condom tester many years ago and she claims the failure rate is much higher than we are led to believe.


She must have a great sense of humor, or a thick skin, or both. I got the mental image of the local watering hole and someone says, what do you do?


----------



## wr

MO_cows said:


> She must have a great sense of humor, or a thick skin, or both. I got the mental image of the local watering hole and someone says, what do you do?


She's actually a palliative care nurse, who's written several publications on her field but condom tester was something she did while she was in Europe. 

It's a heck of a conversation starter though. When she does mention she used to be a condom quality control tester, most guys will mention they've tested a few too but they get pretty quiet when she mentions she's tested a few hundred thousand :rotfl:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Irish Pixie and no really like this.


:nono:

Get your minds out of the gutter!











(It's getting crowded in here)


----------



## farmrbrown

eep:


----------



## Heritagefarm

wr said:


> I'd be happy to come down and train but I doubt if anyone would listen.


Actually, your country had one of the most innovative social welfare programs in history. It's successs was all quite hush hush. Basically, your government took one town and paid everyone a living wage. Food, clothing, utilities, everything. That town became utopia for, I think it was a bout a decade. They wanted to see what happened in a controlled environment. I forget what the end results were, as they cancelled the program prematurely. Then everyone went back to pretty much doing what they were doing. I need to go find that article. I think I read it in _Science_.


----------



## wr

Heritagefarm said:


> Actually, your country had one of the most innovative social welfare programs in history. It's successs was all quite hush hush. Basically, your government took one town and paid everyone a living wage. Food, clothing, utilities, everything. That town became utopia for, I think it was a bout a decade. They wanted to see what happened in a controlled environment. I forget what the end results were, as they cancelled the program prematurely. Then everyone went back to pretty much doing what they were doing. I need to go find that article. I think I read it in _Science_.



I'd be interested in knowing more and will do some research myself.


----------



## wr

I was pretty young when it happened but the program was called Mincome and it was in Manitoba. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome


----------



## wr

Bearfootfarm said:


> :nono:
> 
> Get your minds out of the gutter!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (It's getting crowded in here)



You have to admit that the stereotypical soccer mom claiming to have tested 100,000 condoms is going to raise some eyebrows. 

The point is that a very small percentage are tested and the rest are assumed to be probably okay.


----------



## Heritagefarm

wr said:


> I was pretty young when it happened but the program was called Mincome and it was in Manitoba.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome


Yes, that's the one.


----------



## wr

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, that's the one.


Although the program was brief, it does seem to have some impact on high school dropout rates. 

It does seem that Finland is set to conduct a similar experiment and it would be nice to see the results.


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> I know this from personal experience when I was a firefighter in rural California. According to law enforcement I've talked to, I haven't even seen the worst of it.
> 
> I think the saddest case I saw was a woman in her early 80s. I got called to her house for a medical emergency. She was mostly bed-ridden and lived alone. She was in moderate distress, but I wasn't sure why. She had no idea about her prescription meds and I didn't see any pill bottles around, so that was probably a lot of her problem. Her blood pressure was a little high, but she was otherwise stable. I was confident that she was mostly just frightened, but obviously needed to be seen by a doctor. I saw to it that she got an ambulance ride to the county hospital.
> 
> I didn't go in with the ambulance because I wanted to talk to the sheriff deputy that I called to secure the house. I didn't really need the sheriff (I could have just locked-up behind myself) but I wanted him to see what I found while I was looking for her meds. The only thing I could find in the house for her to eat was a partial 5 pound bag of flour.
> 
> The deputy was a friend that I had worked with before. When I showed him he said, "Oh yeah, she's living on flour paste. They put flour in a bowl with a little water and salt. It keeps them alive." He said he would visit the ER and arrange for a social worker to be assigned to her case.
> 
> I was terribly haunted by that call. I still am. I'm not only disturbed for her, I also wonder how many others there are out there living on flour paste.


Sounds more like a mental health issue, or, perhaps, a neglect issue more than an unavailability of food issue.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> Then they're wrong. People who are food insecure can certainly starve.


Got links? B/c there's too many safety nets for anyone to starve.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> Actually, your country had one of the most innovative social welfare programs in history. It's successs was all quite hush hush. Basically, your government took one town and paid everyone a living wage. Food, clothing, utilities, everything. That town became utopia for, I think it was a bout a decade. They wanted to see what happened in a controlled environment. I forget what the end results were, as they cancelled the program prematurely. Then everyone went back to pretty much doing what they were doing. I need to go find that article. I think I read it in _Science_.


Lets extrapolate that idea on the scale of the U.S. adult population.

There are about 245 million adults in the U.S. Lets say that the "living wage" is $1000/month. We provide that to all. Well, that comes to $2.45 trillion/month!!!, or, $29.4 trillion/year. Being that our GDP is around $18trillion/year, There is little hope for your socialist utopia to become a reality. Even at half of that, it the program would eat up almost all of our GDP.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Heritagefarm said:


> Take school lunches for instance. Perhaps if we fed kids better, we would not have to pay for their healthcare for obesity, cancer, etc.


Ahd if we housed everyone in huge condos, bussed them to & from gov't jobs, fed 'em, we'd have a utopia, huh.

Make it so if folks drew straws for what their life would be like, everyone would get the same size straw. (Van Jones)


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> I know this from personal experience when I was a firefighter in rural California. According to law enforcement I've talked to, I haven't even seen the worst of it.
> 
> I think the saddest case I saw was a woman in her early 80s. I got called to her house for a medical emergency. She was mostly bed-ridden and lived alone. She was in moderate distress, but I wasn't sure why. She had no idea about her prescription meds and I didn't see any pill bottles around, so that was probably a lot of her problem. Her blood pressure was a little high, but she was otherwise stable. I was confident that she was mostly just frightened, but obviously needed to be seen by a doctor. I saw to it that she got an ambulance ride to the county hospital.
> 
> I didn't go in with the ambulance because I wanted to talk to the sheriff deputy that I called to secure the house. I didn't really need the sheriff (I could have just locked-up behind myself) but I wanted him to see what I found while I was looking for her meds. The only thing I could find in the house for her to eat was a partial 5 pound bag of flour.
> 
> The deputy was a friend that I had worked with before. When I showed him he said, "Oh yeah, she's living on flour paste. They put flour in a bowl with a little water and salt. It keeps them alive." He said he would visit the ER and arrange for a social worker to be assigned to her case.
> 
> I was terribly haunted by that call. I still am. I'm not only disturbed for her, I also wonder how many others there are out there living on flour paste.


This is very sad. But its your study of one. And CLEARLY there are programs to help, it doesn't count if someone failed to use them.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> No, I never followed up. I think there's maybe a 60% probability that she went to a facility and never returned home.
> 
> It's hard to say. It depends on what she was like after stabilizing her on meds.


I cannot believe you didn't go directly to the gro store & stock her up. Most here would've


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> Lets extrapolate that idea on the scale of the U.S. adult population.
> 
> There are about 245 million adults in the U.S. Lets say that the "living wage" is $1000/month. We provide that to all. Well, that comes to $2.45 trillion/month!!!, or, $29.4 trillion/year. Being that our GDP is around $18trillion/year, There is little hope for your socialist utopia to become a reality. Even at half of that, it the program would eat up almost all of our GDP.


GDP isn't a measure of how much money we're making. The US median household income is $51,939 - one of the highest in the world, but median GDP is a similar number. Further, you added an extra zero somewhere. 245,000,000,000 - this is $245B to give everyone $1k a month, which adds to $2.9T - a fraction of the GDP. If we take the whole GDP we can give everyone $73k a year, but somehow I assume this calculation is flawed since GDP takes so many things into consideration.



Tricky Grama said:


> Ahd if we housed everyone in huge condos, bussed them to & from gov't jobs, fed 'em, we'd have a utopia, huh.
> 
> Make it so if folks drew straws for what their life would be like, everyone would get the same size straw. (Van Jones)


No, that doesn't sound like utopia. I never said it was.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> GDP isn't a measure of how much money we're making. The US median household income is $51,939 - one of the highest in the world, but median GDP is a similar number. Further, you added an extra zero somewhere. 245,000,000,000 - this is $245B to give everyone $1k a month, which adds to $2.9T - a fraction of the GDP. If we take the whole GDP we can give everyone $73k a year, but somehow I assume this calculation is flawed since GDP takes so many things into consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that doesn't sound like utopia. I never said it was.


You are actually correct. I did add a zero. Still taxes would have to skyrocket to do that as your redistribution scheme would take just about all of the current tax receipts. And that is just for the modest price of $1000/per individual. I would assume that any good socialist program would give more to those supporting children. 

Most good people don't want socialism. Most see the pitfalls of the flawed philosophy. On a small, voluntary basis, it may work, for a generation or two, then you get into the ugliness of addiction to government taking care of you. 

Socialism is an evil philosophy. It is not unlike currently illegal drugs like heroine or cocaine. You try it and it makes you feel good, so, you try a little more. Soon, you find that you can't make it without it. It has you and there is little that you can do to fix the problem. It will consume you and those around you. I refuse to be a slave to drugs and I refuse to be a slave to such a misguided philosophy.


----------



## TraderBob

Heritagefarm said:


> Let's not forget that blacks are also disproportionately poor and discriminated against. But, that is most likely their own fault, of course.


You're ---- skippy.
They have more opportunities than any other group in America.


----------



## Nevada

Tricky Grama said:


> This is very sad. But its your study of one. And CLEARLY there are programs to help, it doesn't count if someone failed to use them.


That wasn't the only sad situation I saw in my 9 years of fire/rescue service. But I didn't draw any conclusions from the story, except that there are sad stories out there.


----------



## mnn2501

Nevada said:


> That wasn't the only sad situation I saw in my 9 years of fire/rescue service. But I didn't draw any conclusions from the story, except that there are sad stories out there.


You used it as an example of how people are starving in America due to food insecurity. This was a case of illness (whether physical or mental) AND neglect.
So the original premise stands: no one is starving in America that not by choice or neglect.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> You are actually correct. I did add a zero. Still taxes would have to skyrocket to do that as your redistribution scheme would take just about all of the current tax receipts. And that is just for the modest price of $1000/per individual. I would assume that any good socialist program would give more to those supporting children.
> 
> Most good people don't want socialism. Most see the pitfalls of the flawed philosophy. On a small, voluntary basis, it may work, for a generation or two, then you get into the ugliness of addiction to government taking care of you.
> 
> Socialism is an evil philosophy. It is not unlike currently illegal drugs like heroine or cocaine. You try it and it makes you feel good, so, you try a little more. Soon, you find that you can't make it without it. It has you and there is little that you can do to fix the problem. It will consume you and those around you. I refuse to be a slave to drugs and I refuse to be a slave to such a misguided philosophy.


One must first define evil. Evil is a relative term and is only easily defined by overly simplistic religious answer. If socialism is evil, you are already living in an evil country, and the whole of the EU is evil. I think this is a rather strong term. What does capitalism produce? It results in super rich who run the world and a disgruntled working class. Oh wait, that's what we already have!



TraderBob said:


> You're ---- skippy.
> They have more opportunities than any other group in America.


Unfortunately, there's this thing called reality that disagrees you.


----------



## JeffreyD

Heritagefarm said:


> One must first define evil. Evil is a relative term and is only easily defined by overly simplistic religious answer. If socialism is evil, you are already living in an evil country, and the whole of the EU is evil. I think this is a rather strong term. What does capitalism produce? It results in super rich who run the world and a disgruntled working class. Oh wait, that's what we already have!
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, there's this thing called reality that disagrees you.


Care to try to prove your last statement?


----------



## Heritagefarm

JeffreyD said:


> Care to try to prove your last statement?


http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet



> African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites


There are several reasons for this.


----------



## mreynolds

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet
> 
> 
> 
> There are several reasons for this.


Yes, but wouldn't that be missed opportunities? For the ones not incarcerated there are very many opportunities. This I know for fact. A Caucasian and a African American bid on the same construction job. The AA, can charge 10% more and still be considered a lower bid by government standards. Even more uneven, a woman can charge even more. An American Indian can charge 15% more and still be the low bid. 

So, if you are an American Indian woman you are platinum to the affirmative action bidding process.


----------



## JeffreyD

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet
> 
> 
> 
> There are several reasons for this.


I was talking about opportunities that only apply to blacks. Their incarceration rate is high because they comit more crime per capita than other races do. Just a fact.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mreynolds said:


> Yes, but wouldn't that be missed opportunities? For the ones not incarcerated there are very many opportunities. This I know for fact. A Caucasian and a African American bid on the same construction job. The AA, can charge 10% more and still be considered a lower bid by government standards. Even more uneven, a woman can charge even more. An American Indian can charge 15% more and still be the low bid.
> 
> So, if you are an American Indian woman you are platinum to the affirmative action bidding process.


A friend of mine lost out on a job at the post office to a black female handicapped veteran.


----------



## coolrunnin

elevenpoint said:


> A friend of mine lost out on a job at the post office to a black female handicapped veteran.


He would probably lost out to a white male vet with conflict points.


----------



## Heritagefarm

JeffreyD said:


> I was talking about opportunities that only apply to blacks. Their incarceration rate is high because they comit more crime per capita than other races do. Just a fact.


I knew you would say that. You should try not to be too predictable. You really should all just come out say blacks are the scum of the earth. 

African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites

The answer is not that simple. Much of it has to do with a variety of variables, including blacks beings disproportionately poor, discrimination, and they also tend to be incarcerated more often than whites for the exact same crimes. Your deliberate ignorance never ceases to astonish.


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> I was talking about opportunities that only apply to blacks. Their incarceration rate is high because they comit more crime per capita than other races do. Just a fact.


They do seem to have had and continue to have some unique opportunities. Many have had the opportunity to be pulled over by the police for being in the wrong neighborhood. Many have had the unique opportunity of being stopped, questioned and searched while walking down a city street because of their skin tone. Many have had the unique opportunity to serve jail sentences two, three or more times longer than others, of a decidedly lighter skin tone, who chose to sell or use a more acceptable form of a rather common drug. Yep, unique opportunities abound in the black community.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> They do seem to have had and continue to have some unique opportunities. Many have had the opportunity to be pulled over by the police for being in the wrong neighborhood. Many have had the unique opportunity of being stopped, questioned and searched while walking down a city street because of their skin tone. Many have had the unique opportunity to serve jail sentences two, three or more times longer than others, of a decidedly lighter skin tone, who chose to sell or use a more acceptable form of a rather common drug. Yep, unique opportunities abound in the black community.


Overcharged interest on loans too.

"Fifth Third Bank, a Cincinnati-based financial institution with branches in Georgia, has agreed to an $18 million settlement after being accused of charging blacks and Hispanics more than others for auto loans made through dealerships, according to the U.S. Department of Justice."

From: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/fifth-third-bank-to-pay-18m-for-overcharging-black/nnyDf/


----------



## no really

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet
> 
> 
> 
> There are several reasons for this.


It would be interesting to further break down the stats into types of crimes. I do feel that drug laws need to be revisited, IMHO adults should be able to put whatever poison into their bodies they want. Legalize drugs, tax them and put in place quality control, along the same lines as food and beverage.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> They do seem to have had and continue to have some unique opportunities. Many have had the opportunity to be pulled over by the police for being in the wrong neighborhood. Many have had the unique opportunity of being stopped, questioned and searched while walking down a city street because of their skin tone. Many have had the unique opportunity to serve jail sentences two, three or more times longer than others, of a decidedly lighter skin tone, who chose to sell or use a more acceptable form of a rather common drug. Yep, unique opportunities abound in the black community.


Haha, so have I, been pulled over for driving while white! You have, for some reason, chosen to completely ignore the real facts. Boring.


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Haha, so have I, been pulled over for driving while white! You have, for some reason, chosen to completely ignore the real facts. Boring.


Facts like these. http://vtdigger.org/2012/04/03/police-report-shows-blacks-more-likely-to-be-stopped/


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> Facts like these. http://vtdigger.org/2012/04/03/police-report-shows-blacks-more-likely-to-be-stopped/


Your dwelling on the negatives, look at the positives! Think "affirmative action". See all the benifits?


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Haha, so have I, been pulled over for driving while white! You have, for some reason, chosen to completely ignore the real facts. Boring.


Or facts like these. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/09/boston-police-more-likely-to-stop-blacks-report-finds.html


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Haha, so have I, been pulled over for driving while white! You have, for some reason, chosen to completely ignore the real facts. Boring.


Or facts like these?http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities/


----------



## mmoetc

I can keep going if you'd like.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> Or facts like these. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/09/boston-police-more-likely-to-stop-blacks-report-finds.html


So, makes sense to profile doesn't it? I didn't cry and whine when I was pulled over, know why, I didn't comit any crime. 2 minutes later I was on my way. No big deal.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> I can keep going if you'd like.


Your choice. But your thinking is completely backwards. Start looking at the benifits, that's what I'm talking about. Anyone can get pulled over by the cops, that's easy.


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Your choice. But your thinking is completely backwards. Start looking at the benifits, that's what I'm talking about. Anyone can get pulled over by the cops, that's easy.


You mean benefits like being searched more often, arrested more often, sentenced more harshly? Enjoying the benefits of three hots and a cot in a disproportionate manner. The benefit of having that record follow them around further limiting their civil freedoms and affecting things likes employment and housing possibilities. Yeah, the benefits are almost endless.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> You mean benefits like being searched more often, arrested more often, sentenced more harshly? Enjoying the benefits of three hots and a cot in a disproportionate manner. The benefit of having that record follow them around further limiting their civil freedoms and affecting things likes employment and housing possibilities. Yeah, the benefits are almost endless.


Negative attitudes breed negativity! I'm talking about the positives that for some reason you semester to be blind too. But keep going with that attitude, means nothing to me.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Blacks are disproportionately profiled against. This contributed to their poverty, which creates a vicious circle of poverty, discrimination, and crime. We have a massive white supremacy problem. Just look at how successful Trump is...


----------



## MO_cows

Massive white supremacy problem? Did someone set their watch back to 1959? If that were true there would be no Oprah empire, Beyonce, etc. Some of the most wealthy and powerful people in their fields are black. From sports to entertainment to politics to business. You get out of life what you put into it for the most part. People who make no effort to improve their lot in life aren't magically going to be successful no matter how much white guilt you harbor.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Yes I think a great deal of people are setting their watches back to 1959. 

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

The number of hate groups was risen sharply in the last few years. Many of them are Klans, white nationalist society's, and white supremecy, while some may or may not also hate the LGBT community.


----------



## po boy

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes I think a great deal of people are setting their watches back to 1959.
> 
> https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map
> 
> The number of hate groups was risen sharply in the last few years. Many of them are Klans, white nationalist society's, and white supremecy, while some may or may not also hate the LGBT community.


When SPLC list their organization as a hate group, I'll believe a little of what they claim.


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Negative attitudes breed negativity! I'm talking about the positives that for some reason you semester to be blind too. But keep going with that attitude, means nothing to me.


Maybe you can share some of those positives. I do know quite a few prison guards who have found relatively stable employment due to higher incarceration rates. That's good, right?


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> So, makes sense to profile doesn't it? I didn't cry and whine when I was pulled over, know why, I didn't comit any crime. 2 minutes later I was on my way. No big deal.


2 minutes. I've never been in a traffic stop that took two minutes. It generally takes longer than that for the officer to get your information and run it through the system. It likely means you weren't asked to exit the car and searched, something far more likely to happen to blacks than you. Its likely you weren't asked if your car could be searched and then waited for the drug dog to make its way to you. Something blacks get to enjoy disproportiontly.

In earlier threads I've posted my experience of driving through the wrong, or was it the right, neighborhood with a black co worker in my car. Trust me, none of the stops took only two minutes even when the LEO recognized us from a previous encounter.


----------



## AmericanStand

mmoetc said:


> They do seem to have had and continue to have some unique opportunities. Many have had the opportunity to be pulled over by the police for being in the wrong neighborhood. Many have had the unique opportunity of being stopped, questioned and searched while walking down a city street because of their skin tone. Many have had the unique opportunity to serve jail sentences two, three or more times longer than others, of a decidedly lighter skin tone, who chose to sell or use a more acceptable form of a rather common drug. Yep, unique opportunities abound in the black community.



I don't think those are because of color. 
I think most of that is a reflection of being perceived as poor.


----------



## mmoetc

AmericanStand said:


> I don't think those are because of color.
> I think most of that is a reflection of being perceived as poor.


No, it's color. Read the links. If it were economic status the numbers for poor whites would be as high as that for all blacks. And even if it was economic status, how would that make it any more correct? Are there different laws for the rich than the poor? Sorry, that was a stupid question.


----------



## no really

I have a problem with the white supremacy/white guilt thing, for me as a non white it comes off as a bit of ego. Are all traffic stops made by whites? Are all judges, lawyers and politicians white? I do feel there are some problems in some areas that need to be addressed. Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama and Eric Holder they have achieved a lot.

The black community is working to change attitudes in the black community, things have taken a large step back in the last few years. As a friend of mine who grew up in Compton said, education first even if it means separating some kids from parents. He lived the life and made it out to get an education and make something of his life. He also said some of the biggest obstacles was the community.


----------



## mreynolds

no really said:


> I have a problem with the white supremacy/white guilt thing, for me as a non white it comes off as a bit of ego. Are all traffic stops made by whites? Are all judges, lawyers and politicians white? I do feel there are some problems in some areas that need to be addressed. Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama and Eric Holder they have achieved a lot.
> 
> The black community is working to change attitudes in the black community, things have taken a large step back in the last few years. As a friend of mine who grew up in Compton said, education first even if it means separating some kids from parents. He lived the life and made it out to get an education and make something of his life. He also said some of the biggest obstacles was the community.


Yes in Compton, home of the Bloods, it wasn't white supremacy at all. The Bloods were formed because the Crips wouldn't let them go anywhere without being harassed. They formed it because they wanted to live. Now though, the Bloods sell drugs too and do the same things as the Crips. You have to fight fire with fire. Same as the Syndicate, Isis and MS13 and all the others. 

Starts off as protection and ends up as a money making deal. Since these groups are made up pretty much same race they fight other gangs that are the same race or one totally different. But the white get _ALL_ the blame? Not buying it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

po boy said:


> When SPLC list their organization as a hate group, I'll believe a little of what they claim.


Why - they're a hate group for going after hate groups? I read the comments on the previous page before they were deleted, and I think we have a pretty good hate group right here on this forum.


----------



## wr

no really said:


> The black community is working to change attitudes in the black community, things have taken a large step back in the last few years. As a friend of mine who grew up in Compton said, education first even if it means separating some kids from parents. He lived the life and made it out to get an education and make something of his life. He also said some of the biggest obstacles was the community.


Separating kids from families was tried by way of residential schools in Canada and while it sounds like a good idea, it was an epic failure that destroyed a lot more lives than it saved.


----------



## no really

wr said:


> Separating kids from families was tried by way of residential schools in Canada and while it sounds like a good idea, it was an epic failure that destroyed a lot more lives than it saved.



Are the two instances comparable? I'm sorry but I will take the word of someone who has lived it, he had to make a choice between being in a gang or dying. After watching several siblings become part of the gang culture end up in prison or dead, he ran away at 12. Lived on the streets for a time, he said it was the best thing he ever did.


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> Are the two instances comparable? I'm sorry but I will take the word of someone who has lived it, he had to make a choice between being in a gang or dying. After watching several siblings become part of the gang culture end up in prison or dead, he ran away at 12. Lived on the streets for a time, he said it was the best thing he ever did.


I have family members in Canada that lived it. There is a big difference between forcible removal of a child for the purposes of education and running away from a dysfunctional home.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> I have family members in Canada that lived it. There is a big difference between forcible removal of a child for the purposes of education and running away from a dysfunctional home.


That in itself underlines your not understanding the culture.


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> That in itself underlines your not understanding the culture.


Why do you think I don't understand the culture?


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> Why do you think I don't understand the culture?


You simplified a very complex situation with the dysfunctional comment. 

At the time my friend was living there the life expectancy of a black male was under 30. 

Here is a little blurb from someone else who got out.

His name is Artis Leon Ivey Jr., though he's better known by his stage moniker, Coolio. And in just a few days, the Grammy-winning pop culture icon will defy the odds for a 28th straight year.

Coolio turns 50 on August 1.

"I grew up during a time when the average lifespan of a black male was 22 in my neighborhood," he says. "I'm 28 years past due, bro. And I'm happy 'bout that."

As well he should be.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/...-black-male-was-22-in-my-neighborhood-6437938


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> You simplified a very complex situation with the dysfunctional comment.
> 
> At the time my friend was living there the life expectancy of a black male was under 30.
> 
> Here is a little blurb from someone else who got out.
> 
> His name is Artis Leon Ivey Jr., though he's better known by his stage moniker, Coolio. And in just a few days, the Grammy-winning pop culture icon will defy the odds for a 28th straight year.
> 
> Coolio turns 50 on August 1.
> 
> "I grew up during a time when the average lifespan of a black male was 22 in my neighborhood," he says. "I'm 28 years past due, bro. And I'm happy 'bout that."
> 
> As well he should be.
> 
> http://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/...-black-male-was-22-in-my-neighborhood-6437938


So you assumed. Okay.


----------



## no really

:rock: just reading the words.:rock:


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> :rock: just reading the words.:rock:


Yes and assuming that is all there is to a story truncates what could be a good discussion.


----------



## Heritagefarm

no really said:


> You simplified a very complex situation with the dysfunctional comment.
> 
> At the time my friend was living there the life expectancy of a black male was under 30.
> 
> Here is a little blurb from someone else who got out.
> 
> His name is Artis Leon Ivey Jr., though he's better known by his stage moniker, Coolio. And in just a few days, the Grammy-winning pop culture icon will defy the odds for a 28th straight year.
> 
> Coolio turns 50 on August 1.
> 
> "I grew up during a time when the average lifespan of a black male was 22 in my neighborhood," he says. "I'm 28 years past due, bro. And I'm happy 'bout that."
> 
> As well he should be.
> 
> http://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/...-black-male-was-22-in-my-neighborhood-6437938


I had no idea lifespan was so short in those areas. This is likely due to a variety of factors? Where are these neighborhoods?


----------



## wr

no really said:


> Are the two instances comparable? I'm sorry but I will take the word of someone who has lived it, he had to make a choice between being in a gang or dying. After watching several siblings become part of the gang culture end up in prison or dead, he ran away at 12. Lived on the streets for a time, he said it was the best thing he ever did.



My husband left home and one of my family members left home about the same age for similar reasons but that isn't really the same as just allowing the government to simply take children. 

I have family members and friends who are casualties of that system and the results were ugly.


----------



## mreynolds

painterswife said:


> I have family members in Canada that lived it. There is a big difference between forcible removal of a child for the purposes of education and running away from a dysfunctional home.


That sounds terrible. Now why were they doing this for? Were the parents not responsible or was it an experiment?


----------



## mreynolds

Heritagefarm said:


> Where are these neighborhoods?


Anywhere there are people but Compton was especially rough for the blacks with Bloods and Crips war since the 60's. Gang wars there have been the worse anywhere since Al Capone. At least to hear the media tell it. Death Row records was a money making venture for the Bloods before they got big into drugs. They tried to stay legit for as long as possible. There is a movie called _Straight outta Compton_ or something like that you may want to watch. Haven't seen it yet but I will watch it I think. 

This is where the mortality rate is much lower that Oh Really is talking about. Most of my info comes from watching _Gangland_. It will open your eyes a bit. Gangs of all races not just blacks.


----------



## painterswife

mreynolds said:


> That sounds terrible. Now why were they doing this for? Were the parents not responsible or was it an experiment?


"The policy was to remove children from the influence of their families and culture, and assimilate them into the dominant Canadian culture.[2] Over the course of the system's existence, about 30% of native children, or roughly 150,000, were placed in residential schools nationally.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system


----------



## mmoetc

It wasnt a Canadian phenomenon. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor---=16516865. Plenty of native Americans in this country had the Indian beaten out them.


----------



## mreynolds

painterswife said:


> "The policy was to remove children from the influence of their families and culture, and assimilate them into the dominant Canadian culture.[2] Over the course of the system's existence, about 30% of native children, or roughly 150,000, were placed in residential schools nationally.[3]"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system


Did not know that. The way it was posted I thought this was like twenty years ago or thirty.


----------



## mreynolds

mmoetc said:


> It wasnt a Canadian phenomenon. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor---=16516865. Plenty of native Americans in this country had the Indian beaten out them.


This I know well as my wife is Choctaw.


----------



## wr

mreynolds said:


> Did not know that. The way it was posted I thought this was like twenty years ago or thirty.


It has gone on much longer than Wiki indicates in various capacities and it's only been in the last few decades that it was discovered that stripping kids of their language and culture causes more suicides and higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse and incarcerations. From that came the Indian Posse which has created a whole other set of problems. 

I strongly believe the reserve system is bad for people but trying to turn native kids into white kids doesn't work either. An elder explained to me that no child can go forward until they come to understand where they came from. 

I'm fortunate that I was raised off rez and raised to understand that being different and speaking multiple languages is a good thing. 

The big guy is Metis and was raised in a community that felt being a bit darker than most and speaking French and Cree meant young men were nothing more than lazy criminals who couldn't hold down jobs.


----------



## AmericanStand

mmoetc said:


> No, it's color. Read the links. If it were economic status the numbers for poor whites would be as high as that for all blacks. And even if it was economic status, how would that make it any more correct? Are there different laws for the rich than the poor? Sorry, that was a stupid question.



Sorry but I can't read the links. 
That's why you are supposed to give a synopsis with links. 

Do they say that whites that are perceived to be as poor as blacks are treated better ?
Not sure how that could be. 
Do the links show how wealth effects treatment of all races ?
I'm fairly sure OJ was treated better that most any poor man would have been.


----------



## mmoetc

AmericanStand said:


> Sorry but I can't read the links.
> That's why you are supposed to give a synopsis with links.
> 
> Do they say that whites that are perceived to be as poor as blacks are treated better ?
> Not sure how that could be.
> Do the links show how wealth effects treatment of all races ?
> I'm fairly sure OJ was treated better that most any poor man would have been.


Sorry you can't read them. The first link I provided dealt with a two year study by the university of Vermont that showed that blacks were twice as likely as whites to be pulled over by police. No mention of economic status was mentioned but there was a comment by the policies chief of one of the municipalities studied that said it was a good step in understanding how racial profiling is evident.

The second dealt with the lawsuit challenging NYC's stop and frisk law and the data that showed while only a small percentage of the stops were done on whites the likelyhood that they were carrying a weapon was higher. It seems they spent a lot of time and effort stopping blacks when their efforts might have been better served stopping more whites.

If you wish to contend its a economic issue you're more than welcome to find stories, articles or evidence to support that conclusion. I've seen nothing that points to police pulling a disproportionate number of people over for driving while poor. There's a lot to support driving while black stops being common.


----------



## no really

wr said:


> My husband left home and one of my family members left home about the same age for similar reasons but that isn't really the same as just allowing the government to simply take children.
> 
> I have family members and friends who are casualties of that system and the results were ugly.


OK back now, what is your answer to my buddy who would live on the street before he stayed in his "home" situation? There were no visits from social services they stayed far away. He was the one who wanted kids removed from the type of home he had and alot of others. 

He told me that the caring social services and do gooders stopped at the inner city.. They were on their own.


----------



## no really

mreynolds said:


> Anywhere there are people but Compton was especially rough for the blacks with Bloods and Crips war since the 60's. Gang wars there have been the worse anywhere since Al Capone. At least to hear the media tell it. Death Row records was a money making venture for the Bloods before they got big into drugs. They tried to stay legit for as long as possible. There is a movie called _Straight outta Compton_ or something like that you may want to watch. Haven't seen it yet but I will watch it I think.
> 
> This is where the mortality rate is much lower that Oh Really is talking about. Most of my info comes from watching _Gangland_. It will open your eyes a bit. Gangs of all races not just blacks.


My buddy told me that one of his first memories as a child was his sister being raped in the bed next to him. He didn't even know what a father was until he was older.

He was not a big guy so he was a target, he also liked to read, another target factor. School was just as rough as the street drugs, and fights.


----------



## wr

no really said:


> OK back now, what is your answer to my buddy who would live on the street before he stayed in his "home" situation? There were no visits from social services they stayed far away. He was the one who wanted kids removed from the type of home he had and alot of others.
> 
> 
> 
> He told me that the caring social services and do gooders stopped at the inner city.. They were on their own.



My husband actually reported his own parents and when the workers showed up, provided sufficient evidence to be removed from the home and nothing came of the multiple reports. 

Certainly, any child being abused or neglected should be removed but not all children in poor homes are abused. Under those parameters, my own kids could have been seized and thrown in foster care. They have never been abused, were closely supervised and turned into fine adults.


----------



## no really

wr said:


> My husband actually reported his own parents and when the workers showed up, provided sufficient evidence to be removed from the home and nothing came of the multiple reports.
> 
> Certainly, any child being abused or neglected should be removed but not all children in poor homes are abused. Under those parameters, my own kids could have been seized and thrown in foster care. They have never been abused, were closely supervised and turned into fine adults.


You are not understanding it is not the monetary, his mother was a drug dealer and prostitute. Social services didn't cross that invisible line into the area. 

But one good thing came out of this, I called my friend and we are getting together next week. He also told me to let this conversation go as most people do not want to know the real story behind the type of life so many like him have lived. Normalcy bias was his answer. But than again he escaped his life and is now very involved in correcting the problem.


----------



## wr

no really said:


> You are not understanding it is not the monetary, his mother was a drug dealer and prostitute. Social services didn't cross that invisible line into the area.
> 
> 
> 
> But one good thing came out of this, I called my friend and we are getting together next week. He also told me to let this conversation go as most people do not want to know the real story behind the type of life so many like him have lived. Normalcy bias was his answer. But than again he escaped his life and is now very involved in correcting the problem.



We have laws in place to protect kids and perhaps somebody needs a kick in the pants but your original statement related to the idea that removing kids to educate was a good idea, which is a much different concept than removing individual kids from unfit homes. 

I'm firmly of the opinion that not kid should live through what my husband did but I know the system failed failed him 35 years ago. More laws doesn't fix a broken system. 

Additionally, I've watched your child welfare system literally dance around a family member trying to teach how to mother a handicapped baby and blatantly ignore significant warning signs until the child was admitted to hospital. 

Ironically, we holler when they seize kids because we feel it's too quick and their mistakes often make headline news.


----------



## no really

wr said:


> We have laws in place to protect kids and perhaps somebody needs a kick in the pants but your original statement related to the idea that removing kids to educate was a good idea, which is a much different concept than removing individual kids from unfit homes.
> 
> I'm firmly of the opinion that not kid should live through what my husband did but I know the system failed failed him 35 years ago. More laws doesn't fix a broken system.
> 
> Additionally, I've watched your child welfare system literally dance around a family member trying to teach how to mother a handicapped baby and blatantly ignore significant warning signs until the child was admitted to hospital.
> 
> Ironically, we holler when they seize kids because we feel it's too quick and their mistakes often make headline news.


Not my statement the statement of someone who lived it. He fought his way out, he survived in spite of laws and good intentions. He saw his people regress, suffer and give up. 

But we all have our challenges.


----------



## mreynolds

wr said:


> It has gone on much longer than Wiki indicates in various capacities and it's only been in the last few decades that it was discovered that stripping kids of their language and culture causes more suicides and higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse and incarcerations. From that came the Indian Posse which has created a whole other set of problems.
> 
> I strongly believe the reserve system is bad for people but trying to turn native kids into white kids doesn't work either. An elder explained to me that no child can go forward until they come to understand where they came from.
> 
> I'm fortunate that I was raised off rez and raised to understand that being different and speaking multiple languages is a good thing.
> 
> The big guy is Metis and was raised in a community that felt being a bit darker than most and speaking French and Cree meant young men were nothing more than lazy criminals who couldn't hold down jobs.


Yes, being raised off rez is a double edged sword. On one hand you get a different perspective on life which can be good. But going back is nearly impossible because you are cast as an outsider. Especially if you marry someone who isn't Indian. Even if you do you are looked at with suspicion because you left for a time. 

Now, apply that same mentality to gang life in Compton or any other big city. If you are not Blood, Crip or insert gang here.... you can die or get beaten or raped or insert violation here... 

Some of this is done by people of different race but lots is done by people of the same race. I have been around many years and I can not just subscribe to the whites are the only evil ones keeping blacks down. Racist don't have the voice they used to have. Yes they are still with is and always will be but not as bad as thirty years ago. At least not where I live anyway. A man is not hired just because he is white. A man is not arrested just because he is black. We don't stand for that here.


----------



## mreynolds

mmoetc said:


> Sorry you can't read them. The first link I provided dealt with a two year study by the university of Vermont that showed that blacks were twice as likely as whites to be pulled over by police. No mention of economic status was mentioned but there was a comment by the policies chief of one of the municipalities studied that said it was a good step in understanding how racial profiling is evident.
> 
> The second dealt with the lawsuit challenging NYC's stop and frisk law and the data that showed while only a small percentage of the stops were done on whites the likelyhood that they were carrying a weapon was higher. It seems they spent a lot of time and effort stopping blacks when their efforts might have been better served stopping more whites.
> 
> If you wish to contend its a economic issue you're more than welcome to find stories, articles or evidence to support that conclusion. I've seen nothing that points to police pulling a disproportionate number of people over for driving while poor. There's a lot to support driving while black stops being common.


Another reason for me not to like NY city.


----------



## mreynolds

no really said:


> My buddy told me that one of his first memories as a child was his sister being raped in the bed next to him. He didn't even know what a father was until he was older.
> 
> He was not a big guy so he was a target, he also liked to read, another target factor. School was just as rough as the street drugs, and fights.


I am glad he was able to get out. I know what he did wasn't an easy choice. The easy choice would have been to conform to the streets.


----------



## Txsteader

mmoetc said:


> If you wish to contend its a economic issue you're more than welcome to find stories, articles or evidence to support that conclusion.* I've seen nothing that points to police pulling a disproportionate number of people over for driving while poor. *There's a lot to support driving while black stops being common.


Don't need to find articles; BTDT. Shoot, I've seen it for years. Experienced it a few times, too, and you can't get much whiter than us. Drive an old car, your chances are better than average for being pulled over. White cops and black cops. Some communities are notorious for it. 

Forty years ago, the chances of a white male w/ long hair getting pulled over were better than average. Why? There was a good chance you had some type of drugs. 

It was about economics.


----------



## rambler

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, some posters seem to think that I did the research indicated in the article. I did not. I simply posted it for discussion. If you (collective you) have an issue with the information please contact the US Department of Agriculture who compiled the statistics. Telling me "duh", accusing me of "bomb dropping", insinuating I'm racist, and the like isn't nice. Expected, but not nice.


Since you posted the article, and ask for discussion....

What is your take away from it? What is your discussion? I've only read this thread until the above quote. Aside from one deleted, all the other replies to this point seem spot on and are discussing the article, you weren't even mentioned at all.

So, this reply becomes puzzling?

What's your opinion?

Paul


----------



## Irish Pixie

rambler said:


> Since you posted the article, and ask for discussion....
> 
> What is your take away from it? What is your discussion? I've only read this thread until the above quote. Aside from one deleted, all the other replies to this point seem spot on and are discussing the article, you weren't even mentioned at all.
> 
> So, this reply becomes puzzling?
> 
> What's your opinion?
> 
> Paul


I suggest you read the posts up to my post again. ETA: Actually you can't. The deleted post was where the derogatory comments were.


----------



## po boy

Heritagefarm said:


> Why - they're a hate group for going after hate groups? I read the comments on the previous page before they were deleted, and I think we have a pretty good hate group right here on this forum.


Just using the same criteria they use.



By falsely and recklessly labeling Christian ministries as âhate groups,â the SPLC is directly responsible for the first conviction of a man who intended to commit mass murder targeted against a policy organization in Washington, D.C. On August 15, 2012, Floyd Corkins went to the Family Research Council with a gun and a bag filled with ammunition and Chick-fil-A sandwiches. His stated purpose was to kill as many employees of the Family 

Dr. Ben Carson

If you disagree with Morris Dees, you are a hate group.


----------



## Heritagefarm

rambler said:


> Since you posted the article, and ask for discussion....
> 
> What is your take away from it? What is your discussion? I've only read this thread until the above quote. Aside from one deleted, all the other replies to this point seem spot on and are discussing the article, you weren't even mentioned at all.
> 
> So, this reply becomes puzzling?
> 
> What's your opinion?
> 
> Paul


That was a lot of reading.



po boy said:


> Just using the same criteria they use.
> 
> 
> 
> By falsely and recklessly labeling Christian ministries as âhate groups,â the SPLC is directly responsible for the first conviction of a man who intended to commit mass murder targeted against a policy organization in Washington, D.C. On August 15, 2012, Floyd Corkins went to the Family Research Council with a gun and a bag filled with ammunition and Chick-fil-A sandwiches. His stated purpose was to kill as many employees of the Family
> 
> Dr. Ben Carson
> 
> If you disagree with Morris Dees, you are a hate group.


I will take these articles into consideration. I was unaware of the SPLC biased nature.


----------



## Txsteader

Gotta wonder, also, why the number of people using food stamps is historically high, yet unemployment numbers are (supposedly) so low. Yeah, I know about the cost of living, but still, you'd think FS numbers would drop rather than rise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Gotta wonder, also, why the *number of people* using food stamps is historically high, yet unemployment numbers are (supposedly) so low. Yeah, I know about the cost of living, but still, you'd think FS numbers would drop rather than rise.


Straight "numbers" will normally rise with population increases, and ours has grown.


----------



## po boy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Straight "numbers" will normally rise with population increases, *and ours has grown*.


Didn't seem right but look at this


----------

