I don’t even know what your point is. I’m not trying to convince you to do something based on the bible. That would be weird since I am an atheist.
I ran to the store today. I feed a fifteen year old boy - so in addition to the plenty of healthy foods we have for the family, we need what appears to be a bottomless supply of fairly cheap calories. The clerks look at me funny - organic milk and vegetables and $2 pizzas.
Around here, the cheapest full sized frozen pizza you can get is 2 - they aren't great, but they are edible. I picked up the cheap Budding lunchmeat and bread - .99 for the cheapest loaf of white bread, and $.60 each for 90 calorie packets of lunchmeat. The bread is 130 calories for two slices - so 220 calories for lets say $1.30, I need 1600 a day, means $7 a day in really cheap sandwiches - or a hell of a lot of mayo.
I always wonder about peanut butter being cheap - now my husband is a choosy mom - only Jif in our household, but our peanut butter budget is huge - and I don’t eat the stuff - its on toast for him and a few after school peanut butter sandwiches for the kids.
The problem is that people arguing for diets composed of only rice and beans; or pasta and nearly expired meat; or endless tiny turkey sandwiches are NOT making policy for the median, they’re making policy for the young and healthy who can endure that sort of deprivation longer than anyone else. Note I said endure, not thrive on it. No one thrives on a diet that insipid and lacking in vegetables and fruit.
The disabled and those with chronic health conditions are more likely to be poor than the able-bodied because they are less desirable as employees to many, thus, they are less likely to be hired and more likely to be laid off. The median condition of the poor, especially the long-term poor, is not the same as the median condition of the middle or upper class.
No, you’re just advocating that people purchase meat the very day it is about to be throw out as unsuitable to be sold, meat that is older and going to go rancid quicker than fresher meat. Here, poor people, eat these dregs that are nearly unfit to be consumed so we don’t have to throw out our own trash!
Not dismissed, no, but I counter that it is based on untrue assumptions. Right now, someone over 35 who is laid off might not find work for years - at one point during the Great Recession those over 40 who were laid off were averaging two years until they could get another job. Two years. Two years on the inadequate diets proposed is too long, people will start acquiring nutritional deficiencies in that time period.
This also disregards that such a high percentage of people in poverty are children. And no, this isn’t an emotionally-based “think of the children!” appeal, it’s based on facts: if you want healthy adults you need to have good diets for children. Not endless rice and beans with no vegetables, not endless tiny turkey sandwiches, but actual nutrition. The growing body needs MORE nutrients than an adult does, not less. Failure to provide this can stunt growth, weaken bones - not to the point of them breaking young adulthood but making osteoporosis more likely later in life - lead to bad teeth, lowered immune response and thus more frequent illness, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Lack of adequate protein can impair muscle development. Lack of vitamin D can cause rickets. My desire to see poor children properly fed is an investment in the future adults of society and not just “aw… the poor widdle kiddies!”.
My disabled spouse would LOVE to work, there certainly is work that he could do, that he’d like to do, but people don’t want to hire him because he walks funny. Sorry if that’s too brutal for you, but I’ve seen it over and over for 25 years. It’s supposed to be illegal but a lot of people would rather hire a less qualified able-bodied person than hire a capable disabled person. So what are they to do? Starve? Live in a cardboard box?
Oh, and those “programs for the disabled”… you have to be disabled enough to get them, just having a bad limp or functional eyesight that still isn’t good enough to let you drive or being hard of hearing just doesn’t cut it. If you’re not completely disabled you’re told to find a job, you’re told to tell employers they have to accommodate you, and meanwhile you’re competing against the able-bodied who require no accommodation at all. Who do you think the average employer will hire?
And, do tell, what is a “low stress job”? I’d love to know what that is, I might want to apply for it. I suspect they’re the sort of thing that’s minimum wage, which is not a living wage at any age these days. A lot of elderly don’t have retirement funds thanks to a tanking stock market, or they’re not going to have one because they were laid off at 50 and had to spend it then so they wouldn’t wind up in a homeless shelter because employers no longer value experience, just exploitable youth, or they outlived their planned retirement funds and will have to find work at 85 or 90. Well, gee, maybe the elderly who outlive their planned retirement - when all those fund planners told them 20 years would be enough - should just kill themselves to save the rest of us inconvenience? I, for one, do not find that acceptable.
This, by the way, is not directed solely at you but at several people on this thread who clearly have no notion what it is to be actually poor or how inadequate the current provisions for the less fortunate are. You say you advocate for easier and less restrictive aid to the poor, then you turn around and say the elderly should just get a job and pointing out that the disabled are at a disadvantage is somehow insulting to the disabled. Which is it? Are you advocate for the poor or an advocate for getting the lazy bums off their asses?
Gentlepersons, let me introduce you to the Earned Income Tax Credit which is what I think you’re aiming for. It already exists, although I think the numbers involved are too low.
For those who don’t want to follow links - you have to be employed to get teh EITC, but up to a point, the more you earn the greater the EITC. Thus, the poor both are rewarded for working and also are rewarded for seeking additional wages.
Funny, I lived on that diet for over a year. Guess I was really days away from death and didn’t know it!
This is a problem I have with a lot of these arguments: people come by and scream how “it just can’t be done” and “you never get yourself out of that hole” and “your health will implode”, and while that may happen to some people, having lived it and having had none of those things come to pass, those arguments lose a lot of weight.
Let me repeat something: I know that can happen to some people, I am simply saying that presenting it as death-defying is ludicrous.
No, I’m not, and strawmanning my argument pisses me off really fast. I argue for getting meat when it’s getting marked down because it isn’t fresh. That means it’s several days old, but not rancid, and would probably be on the shelves for several more days before it’s thrown out. And frankly, even it it’s on it’s last legs, throwing it in the freezer will give you another month on it.
And a lot of those people were averaging two years out of work because they had a spouse that was working, so it wasn’t critical for them to get back to work, or they had savings, and it wasn’t critical for them to get back to work, or they were too proud to take a job at a lower salary in the meantime. And really, the amount of nutrients you need before running into health problems is incredibly low - a bag of mixed veggies thrown in with the pasta will give you 2-3 meals with enough veggies to get all the nutrients you need long-term.
Kids, which can get free school breakfasts and lunches that will contain all the vitamins and minerals they need every day they’re in school? And the protein they can get from the beans and meat mentioned above? The vitamin D comment actually made me laugh - you can get all the vitamin D you need by spending half an hour a day outside. Doesn’t get more free than sunlight.
This is going to sound rude, but is it your husband’s disability that’s keeping him from a job, or your husband? Because I’ve worked with plenty of people that walked funny and yet had no trouble finding work. I’m not saying it’s easy; I’m saying that there are a lot of people out there that use disability as an excuse.
The right person for the job. Quite honestly, I don’t think most disabilities will keep someone from most jobs. Guy in the wheelchair wants be a miner? Sure, he’s not getting that. Guy in the wheelchair wants to be the assistant manager at some retail outlet? Sure, if he has the skills for the job.
Most office work, which is most work in this country, AFAICT.
Given that nobody but you has brought that up, seems like a strawman to me.
Who says it can’t be both? They aren’t mutually exclusive.
My opinion is that you have it the wrong way around: Some People Can Survive Fine. I admit that it’s only anecdotal, but I lived in bad places as a minor and the children on these sorts of diets (which were mainly Mexican-origin families who were used to the rice and beans existence) were not healthy in many ways. While you get adequate protein to stave off starvation, it’s deficient enough that for a long term time (especially in the “Growth” phases of youth) it can be harming. A young adult in the 20-30s with a healthy childhood is definitely in the space in their life where they can go for even a few years in that funk of eating Ramen and rice and beans.
Outside of that rough (some people can survive like that at 10 and some can survive like that at 50) age range surviving like that is where it hurts.
Yes, it’s possible, but it’s rather mean when we are talking about moving a family’s food budget from maybe $140 a month to $280 or $300 so that they have a food budget that makes sense. Give them fresh fruits and vegetables and meat. I’m sure some could survive on 3 barely made turkey sandwiches a day, but I don’t want to force people into that corner.
I also need to disagree, here. People who “had savings” in a manner that they are living on it need to get back to work as soon as possible. A spouse that was working may have paid the bills, but the collectors will come and garnish the spouse down to nothing, simply because you lost half your income. Just because they shut off your credit cards doesn’t mean they don’t want the money back. Worse is, usually people who had a working spouse, the working spouse was making less than half of the one who was laid off.
Worse, after they were forced into servitude to whatever creditors they had, they weren’t eligible for food stamps because the net income was above the line. “Well, they aren’t poor.” Maybe. But they sure as heck aren’t eating well.
Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaah. Kids don’t get that in a lot of places. The breakfasts at my child’s elementary school? Cold cereal (apple jacks, frosted flakes, or cheerios!), a…thing they call an egg sandwich (with bread that was stale during Nixon’s presidency and an…I don’t know what it is, but it’s yellow!). Lunch? A carboard, plastic, and grease medley formed into a rough pizza slice shape or a “hamburger” (no cheese, which may be a good thing). The side is apples or broccoli.
Worse? My school district isn’t poor.
Most jobs I’ve applied for have this annoying little entry: “Must be able to lift 75 pounds.” With the exception of my current job (Which I got through connections) every job I’ve ever applied for has that on the job description somewhere. Everything from the retails jobs I had as a minor (Cashiering is a heavy-lifting gig! But not really.) to a job I had as a software phone support person. I’ve seen that requirement used to drop people. A lot. So if it even LOOKS like the guy might have trouble moving a ream of paper, he’s off the consideration list.
“25 years” of unemployment might be excessive, but I’d give him the benefit of the doubt about discrimination of that sort.
Peanut butter used to be cheap. The people started buying it because it was cheap. Now it’s expensive as heck.
But I must note with your anecdote that you have purchased the base needs for your teenager: Fruits, vegetables, meats (if you are into that sort of thing) and THEN buy him all of the filler calories that us old people all wish we could still eat. Try feeding your teen nothing but those $2 pizzas and peanut butter and other “cheap calorie” food. Betcha a whole bunch of your apples/carrots/etc go missing. If you’re lucky, he’ll leave the door to the fridge intact. 
Just to clarify: A single person can probably live on $150 a month in groceries. But that is roughly the maximum a family (of any size) gets to subsist each month. The average single person take home is $60-100, based on where you live and how much your state hates you.
That’s the problem. Giving a single person $150 a month would go a long way. And giving a family $300 a month would go along way to helping the poor out of Poor-Land.
I never claimed it was “death-defying”, I said it was unhealthy. Why are you promoting an unhealthy diet as a “solution” to poverty?
Yes, IF you had been eating well for years and suddenly ate crap for a year you’d probably be OK, but that doesn’t mean it’s anywhere near an ideal state, or that someone else wouldn’t suffer for it. Someone with a chronic disorder like diabetes needs better nutrition than average, not worse.
And a lot of them didn’t have a working spouse or didn’t have savings and weren’t to proud but didn’t get hired because they were “overqualified”. I know too many people who wound up either couch-surfing or in homeless shelters these past few years.
The thing is, such people simply disappear from the middle-class neighborhoods where they used to live so the more affluent simply don’t see it.
That’s two meals a day five days a week - guess they can just fast on the weekends, holidays, and summer break.
That amount is only sufficient for white people. The dark skinned need more than that. In fact, in many northern states winter sun can be insufficient even for Causians. On top of that, the dark skinned are far more likely to be lactose-intolerant than the lighter-skinned, which compounds the problem.
Every week I get people in my shop who need shoe modifications due to deformities brought on by rickets. A sad number of them are under 30 so you can’t excuse it as something in the past now suffered only by the elderly.
Ah, yes, here we come to the “blame the victim” scenario.
No, it’s not my husband. He’s been told to his face he’s not being hired because he’s disabled. Illegal of course, but it would be just his word against the employer’s. So, when he couldn’t be hired he started his own business. Unfortunately, a health problem some years ago meant we had to liquidate. At the time it wasn’t so bad as I had a middle-class job, but then I got laid off. He’s currently trying to start a new business. No, it’s not him. When he can’t find someone to hire him he does his best to hire himself.
Yes, and there are a lot of employers who use it as an excuse not to hire someone. Or do you think prejudice doesn’t exist?
Only if there isn’t an equally qualified able-bodied person. Unless an employer is explicitly rewarded for hiring the crippled he or she is going to be more inclined to hire the able-bodied, by and large. There are exceptions, but not enough of them.
Because religions are the form on which morals have been built over the centuries. Because many people believe they should follow those strictures, especially when they all agree on something. And especially now that modern evolutionary theory also supports much of what the old religions said.
In countries that do this (Germany, France, the Netherlands) there is no evidence that there is any more work avoidance than in other countries where welfare is not close to minimum wage level. This is for two reasons- most people would rather work with the prospect of improvements rather than be a welfare drone, and secondly with people on less than living wage welfare, they enter the black economy or resort to crime. Those who want to avoid real work will do so whether welfare is high or low.
Of course - we are NOT poor (and by some measures not even middle class), I stay at home and can take time to go to the grocery store every day for fresh fruit and vegetables, and I have time to cook them. So there is no reason for us to live off rice and beans, ramen, potatoes, peanut butter, Wonder bread offbrands, and frozen pizza. However, those are my son’s favorite food groups - and since he eats two more meals a day than the rest of us, that is what he gets.
No, it isn’t. What I was suggesting was $10K to each citizen, no matter what his income is.
Please show me any country that implemented something like this (that is, if you work and earn N, the government will add to you X-N where X is some kind of “reasonable” income).
For cost comparison, the following was on on my receipts yesterday in Los Angeles, Total cost: $38.30. I am not sure how long that would feed one person, but this is probably less than $3 per day. Spent about 2 minutes on the store website clicking on some offers, but somebody with more time could certainly reduce price more. I know I missed a web coupon for 50 cents off the peanut butter and paid twice as much as I could have for the bananas.
3 grapefruit
1.09 pounds broccoli crowns
1 canaloupe melon
1 bundle celery
2 tomatoes
5 oranges
2 limes
1 eggplant
2 bell peppers
5 apples
5 pears
3 large peaches
1.76 pounds of grapes
7 bananas
4 boxes of a dozen granola bars
3 one pound boxes of saltine crackers
1 jar peanut butter
1 can albacore tuna
1 can chunk light tuna
2 tubs of cream cheese
12 bagels
12 eggs
1 pound pistachio nuts
By the way - one thing about the unhealthy fifteen year old diet is that he’s fifteen - and in spectacular shape because he’s a skateboarder. He isn’t carrying extra weight (yet). He gets plenty of exercise, he’s growing like a weed. His body can actually process through these junk calories without the sort of damage they’d do to - oh, say his father, who is overweight and mostly sedentary already. Or me, who isn’t overweight, but am in the process of losing ten and have borderline high cholesterol and a family history of type II diabetes.
That will change in oh, so too few years and he’ll be wondering where those fifteen pounds came from.
Not necessarily. Here in Georgia, the Republican government is fighting Obamacare tooth and nail.
Some of us in America have no desire to see the slums of Rio de Janiero spring up in our cities. It’s not a GOAL, unless you’re a libertarian or a Republican, y’know?