FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

As others have said, obesity doesn't necessarily mean "you're not hungry."

There's a couple of reasons for that. Part of it is that the poor don't eat well, but that that manifests itself in a couple of ways - eating unhealthily, but also eating irregularly.

The biological component of the latter is that if the meals you eat don't happen on a regular schedule, it doesn't matter how calorie-rich they are or aren't. Your body is going to retain as much of it as possible because it doesn't know when the next meal is coming.

I'm sure you've seen photographs of potbellied African children. There's a reason (multiple, really) why that happens. It isn't just binging on McDonald's, and it doesn't mean that,well, they've got a belly, they must be eating okay.

True, but it's mostly McDonald's.

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

Man, there's a lot of middle class and upper middle class folks here telling us all how easy it is to be poor.

There's also a lot a lot of middle class and upper middle class white people here who think they've reached a state of perfect enlightenment in all things. They've figured out all these complex issues and know exactly what's wrong with this country and who all the evil people are (i.e., everyone who either has more power or more money then them - and of course, all those corrupt public service employees "in the system" - who they actually do make more money then), and they get off preaching about how enlightened they are and how everyone else is a racist and doesn't understand how things really work. Edit: I do wonder what most of them ever do to actually help anyone, you know, in real life.

Edit: Upper class rich liberal whites from the suburbs (oh, I'm sorry, "upper middle class" - rich liberal whites HATE to label themselves as "rich") aren't necessarily the first in line to make sacrifices for others. How many of them really want to help out undesirables in poorer parts of their states, at the expense of their own children's upbringings? I grew up in some shitty Massachusetts public schools, so it's not like the blue states are so great at taking care of their own. Preachy Winchester or Lexington white liberals don't want to send their kids to anything but the obnoxiously wealthy public schools in their districts, I guarantee you.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Sometimes those lunches are the best meal, or only meal that those kids are going to get. My school is a 9 on there, but we were told that they still have close to 50 students who are considered homeless.

How Much Could I Receive? | Food and Nutrition Service

The amount of benefits the household gets is called an allotment. The net monthly income of the household is multiplied by .3, and the result is subtracted from the maximum allotment for the household size to find the household's allotment. This is because SNAP households are expected to spend about 30 percent of their resources on food.

(October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015)

People In Household Maximum Monthly Allotment
1 $194
2 $357
3 $511
4 $649
5 $771
6 $925
7 $1,022
8 $1,169
Each additional person $146


Benefits are provided from the day the household applies.

SNAP/EBT covers homeless as well, but sure there are outliers who don't take advantage of the program. The vast majority of folks in poor neighborhoods near me have EBT assistance and appear to be taking full advantage of it. Are you familiar with this program? EBT is essentially a debit card that is pre-loaded with authorized cash and can be used for buying USDA approved foods (and non-USDA approved foods). It's up the individual households to make the right choices though...that can't be dictated by the government.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

And that's why the US has the social mobility of a third world country?

Nicely done!

[Illini Boy]

Originally Posted by Dutch

How Much Could I Receive? | Food and Nutrition Service



SNAP/EBT covers homeless as well, but sure there are outliers who don't take advantage of the program. The vast majority of folks in poor neighborhoods near me have EBT assistance and appear to be taking full advantage of it. Are you familiar with this program? EBT is essentially a debit card that is pre-loaded with authorized cash and can be used for buying USDA approved foods (and non-USDA approved foods). It's up the individual households to make the right choices though...that can't be dictated by the government.

Throughout my life, I have always heard that college students can't afford healthy food because of financial or time reasons. However, as a current college student who certainly does not have that much money, I've learned that is farthest from the truth. My roommates and I spend on average $35 a week on food that lasts an entire week. Rice, pork chops, chicken breast, frozen veggies, bread, and milk are not that expensive as long as you cook it yourself and don't buy already made stuff. I understand that this could be a local or regional thing, but it is amazing to see what people buy with these cards.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I remember the trailer park in Mississippi I spent some time in as a kid. I remember what my mom and dad both did and sacrificed by going to night school. I remember me going to night school (for 7 years).

Good for you, and kudos to your parents. But not everyone is going to get the same breaks or grow up in the same supportive environment of parents sacrificing and setting a great example.

Do we just want to consign those people to the scrap heap because they didn't?

Not everyone is you. Just because you "made it out" doesn't mean that you can sit there and shit on everyone else who didn't get so lucky.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Nicely done!

So here I am saying that poor people need to change the way they think and they can find success and you give me no credit and somebody posts a colorful chart about how people can't change the way they think and you applaud him? What the hell!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Good for you, and kudos to your parents. But not everyone is going to get the same breaks or grow up in the same supportive environment of parents sacrificing and setting a great example.

Do we just want to consign those people to the scrap heap because they didn't?

Not everyone is you. Just because you "made it out" doesn't mean that you can sit there and shit on everyone else who didn't get so lucky.

Seriously, that's all you get out of that? Was I caught some "break"? You make it sound like I won the lottery or that I'm some sort of super-human but more importantly that somehow the life I experienced isn't valuable enough for me to speak up on this issue.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

There's also a lot a lot of middle class and upper middle class white people here who think they've reached a state of perfect enlightenment in all things. They've figured out all these complex issues and know exactly what's wrong with this country and who all the evil people are (i.e., everyone who either has more power or more money then them - and of course, all those corrupt public service employees "in the system" - who they actually do make more money then), and they get off preaching about how enlightened they are and how everyone else is a racist and doesn't understand how things really work. Edit: I do wonder what most of them ever do to actually help anyone, you know, in real life.

Edit: Upper class rich liberal whites from the suburbs (oh, I'm sorry, "upper middle class" - rich liberal whites HATE to label themselves as "rich") aren't necessarily the first in line to make sacrifices for others. How many of them really want to help out undesirables in poorer parts of their states, at the expense of their own children's upbringings? I grew up in some shitty Massachusetts public schools, so it's not like the blue states are so great at taking care of their own. Preachy Winchester or Lexington white liberals don't want to send their kids to anything but the obnoxiously wealthy public schools in their districts, I guarantee you.

I call out the liberals in those towns who think they're solving the whole issue by supporting the METCO program, but you're just making ridiculous arguments. Why would anyone *want* to send their kid further away to a school with lower graduation rates and worse/fewer extracurriculars? But if they did, I really don't think the kids would be much worse off. Steven Levitt did his study of Chicago magnet schools, and while the magnet schools had noticeably higher test scores and graduation rates than the regular public schools there was actually no difference between those kids and the rates for the kids who applied for a magnet school spot, lost the lottery, and stayed in the "shitty" public schools. Parental involvement is, and always will be, the #1 determinant of whether children get an early education when showing up is effectively all you need to do.

Fwiw, as necessary as busing was at the time, I think it's actually hurting Boston public schools now because there are no neighborhood schools. In the suburbs you'll see people in the PTA who won't have kids at the HS for 10 years, or people who don't have kids but still support taxes to raise money for schools funding because they know it props up their real estate market. In the city everyone's just bussed to different parts of the city, so the parents who do care just make sure their kids get into Bo Latin/METCO/ or go to private school instead of spearheading the improvement of their local school.

[PilotMan]

I've been on EBT twice. However, you assume that everyone who qualifies is actually getting assistance. Many aren't because of time, pride, the application process itself. I know that the last time we applied we had an appointment and still my wife nearly had to leave because her 4 hour wait was running against the time she had to get home to be with the kids.

In lower income areas where EBT is found you will also find higher prices at the local grocery. EBT does help families, it was a huge help for us, however it's also a direct cash transaction straight to the private sector. This is something that is not generally considered when it comes to discussions of SNAP. Every penny of it will go directly to a business.

EBT, along with TANF are both good for helping the poor. Frankly there will always be people who are on assistance. They will never work, even if they have the ability. There are people who will always be on assistance who will never work because of an undiagnosed mental disorder. I'm ok with that. Every business has a certain amount of shrink.

I'm ok with small amounts of loss. Nothing is 100% efficient. Those programs are very helpful in lifting people out of severe poverty. The overall cost of these programs v. the number of people that they help is worth it. It's worth it for our society to help make sure that there is a floor with which we won't allow people to live under. The problem is that these very same safety nets have been slowly shrunk, and stripped away over the years in the name of self help (as in do it yourself) and budget cuts.

Sure you can say that the overall number of people on assistance has grown drastically over the last 6 years. It has and it further illustrates how closely people were living to the edge of financial destruction and for how long. The market and economic collapse that we witnessed still has long lasting, rippling effects in our country. Businesses are making record profits yet real income and wage increase has eluded us. People are still making do with less and until those numbers start to go up you will still have record numbers getting help. I wish even more people were getting help. The amount of need is staggering.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So here I am saying that poor people need to change the way they think and they can find success and you give me no credit and somebody posts a colorful chart about how people can't change the way they think and you applaud him? What the hell!

I think they can change the way they think and it will help. Obviously in a case like your family's that was hugely important.

That doesn't mean that the deck isn't stacked against them though.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Seriously, that's all you get out of that? Was I caught some "break"? You make it sound like I won the lottery or that I'm some sort of super-human but more importantly that somehow the life I experienced isn't valuable enough for me to speak up on this issue.

Not at all. I didn't mean to trivialize it - I'm sorry it came off that way. See my post that this is just about to dola.

Enormous credit to your parents and to you for "lifting yourselves up." It doesn't change the fact that on an aggregate level (as opposed to one anecdote) we still have poor social mobility though. And I don't understand why you, as someone who's experienced both sides of it, isn't more sympathetic with efforts to improve that that include anything beyond just "they should work hard and lift themselves up."

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Nicely done!

OK, so how do we change this so it's easier for people like you and pilotman to fall into lower economic classes?

Improving the lives of the poorest people should one of any society's primary goals, but these charts reflect relative wealth. Even if wealthy suburban Massachusetts there's a "richest" and "poorest". But how do we take people in the higher relative classes and move them to the lower relatives classes? Because that is 100% as necessary to moving people up classes. You can't have more social upward mobility without more social downward mobility.

I'm not opposed to the idea of more social mobility in both directions. But I think where the idea falls apart in practice is that that even who say the right things don't want a system where it's easier for them to fall down.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I think they can change the way they think and it will help. Obviously in a case like your family's that was hugely important.

That doesn't mean that the deck isn't stacked against them though.

Like I've said many, many times, this isn't easy to do, but it IS possible to be done. It starts with somebody wanting to change and that, in my experiences, is a very rare quality.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Not at all. I didn't mean to trivialize it - I'm sorry it came off that way. See my post that this is just about to dola.

Thanks, no problem though, normally I've got a thick skin, but normally I don't bring up my own personal experiences in threads...I try really hard to keep that away from the "fray" of FOFC political conversation.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

OK, so how do we change this so it's easier for people like you and pilotman to fall into lower economic classes?

Improving the lives of the poorest people should one of any society's primary goals, but these charts reflect relative wealth. Even if wealthy suburban Massachusetts there's a "richest" and "poorest". But how do we take people in the higher relative classes and move them to the lower relatives classes? Because that is 100% as necessary to moving people up classes. You can't have more social upward mobility without more social downward mobility.

I'm not opposed to the idea of more social mobility in both directions. But I think where the idea falls apart in practice is that that even who say the right things don't want a system where it's easier for them to fall down.

That's a valid point. I don't want to ignore it, but I don't have a "snappy" answer ready.

And I need to do some work.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

There is no place on earth where cheap canned food is healthy. Frozen vegetables don't have the same healthy stuff that fresh have and they surely don't taste as good. It takes time and knowledge to prepare good healthy food. Poor people generally don't have at least 1 of those skills they need.

Canned vegetables have the same nutrients as the "fresh" vegetables you pick up at the store. Plus they don't lose their nutrients nearly as fast when they're stored.

There's also a wealth of information on the internet on how to prepare a healthy meal.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So here I am saying that poor people need to change the way they think and they can find success and you give me no credit and somebody posts a colorful chart about how people can't change the way they think and you applaud him? What the hell!

I'm trying to understand your purpose in these recent posts. Are you giving your personal experience as a way for us to understand your opinion/ attitude? or are you using a personal antidote, as opposes to colorful data, to convince us the readers?

It is clear why you believe what you do, and for good, even admirable reasons. For my own understanding, I just have a hard time transferring your experience to other people and situations in any universal way.

[molson]

Just like with the law enforcement stuff I think it's important to at least try to identity some of the real human changes with all this stuff, instead of attacking the teachers or the rich people whoever people like to blame.

I think parenthood is a big roadblock to social mobility and social change. Kids in college tend to be pretty liberal and it makes sense - they have no responsibility, tend to live simpler lifestyles (a lot of them like to pretend they're "broke", when really, their white suburban parents can of course bail them out at any time). When they have kids, it's a game-changer. Parenthood is acceptable societal selfishness. Now people who have the means HAVE to live in a nicer house in a nicer neighborhood and make a good living - fully embracing white privilege wherever they can find it. They want the best for their kids - the best schools, the best sports opportunities, the best whatever they can possibly give them. Parenthood isn't inherently evil or anything, in fact, we kind of need it for society to continue, but I think that's a great example of a complex otherwise-noble societal thing that does create a lot of roadblocks to societal change. So like with any of this stuff, it's not about stopping evil parents, or evil rich people, or evil teachers, or evil law enforcement, it's about understanding those complex human things in any attempt to continue to improve our society.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's a valid point. I don't want to ignore it, but I don't have a "snappy" answer ready.

I don't either, but two options that come to mind right away are really scaling down the concept of inheritance, and reducing or eliminating the concept of unemployment insurance. Those are two of the ways people in the middle and upper middle class hold onto their spots. But I'm guessing those wouldn't be very popular, even among the left. (I think many more people would be OK with higher inheritance taxes on the very wealthy, and while targeting the very wealthiest in that manner would fund the government better, I don't think it bumps them down social classes or increases social mobility).

[PilotMan]

Just like with the law enforcement stuff I think it's important to at least try to identity some of the real human changes with all this stuff, instead of attacking the teachers or the rich people whoever people like to blame.

I think parenthood is a big roadblock to social mobility and social change. Kids in college tend to be pretty liberal and it makes sense - they have no responsibility, tend to live simpler lifestyles (a lot of them like to pretend they're "broke", when really, their white suburban parents can of course bail them out at any time). When they have kids, it's a game-changer. Parenthood is acceptable societal selfishness. Now people who have the means HAVE to live in a nicer house in a nicer neighborhood and make a good living - fully embracing white privilege wherever they can find it. They want the best for their kids - the best schools, the best sports opportunities, the best whatever they can possibly give them. Parenthood isn't inherently evil or anything, in fact, we kind of need it for society to continue, but I think that's a great example of a complex otherwise-noble societal thing that does create a lot of roadblocks to societal change. So like with any of this stuff, it's not about stopping evil parents, or evil rich people, or evil teachers, or evil law enforcement, it's about understanding those complex human things in any attempt to continue to improve our society.

Very well stated molson. I think recognition of there being a very complex set of issues, interwoven and compounding is a step toward the ultimate larger discussions about our society. It's when things get boiled down to the dumbest common denominator, to the levels people only want to hear or understand is where the roadblocks to progress really exist.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

There is no place on earth where cheap canned food is healthy. Frozen vegetables don't have the same healthy stuff that fresh have and they surely don't taste as good. It takes time and knowledge to prepare good healthy food. Poor people generally don't have at least 1 of those skills they need.

This just isn't true. Frozen veggies are as healthy, and in some cases, healthier than fresh. Since they are flash frozen right away they don't lose nutrients in transition. They also don't require salt like canned ones do.

And 60 seconds in a microwave doesn't take time or skill to prepare.

You guys are creating imaginary boundaries. Maybe people are fat because they like to eat bad food more than good food.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I'm trying to understand your purpose in these recent posts. Are you giving your personal experience as a way for us to understand your opinion/ attitude? or are you using a personal antidote, as opposes to colorful data, to convince us the readers?

It is clear why you believe what you do, and for good, even admirable reasons. For my own understanding, I just have a hard time transferring your experience to other people and situations in any universal way.

I don't know, mostly just giving my opinion based on my experiences and from experiences of those around me. A couple of things...

1. You are right, the way I "made it" is not universal, my parents set the standard for success and eventually I took it seriously. People are just different, our up-bringing's are different and we all have different goals that we choose to achieve and reach for each and every day. Some people work a second job at night (and I would like to help folks like that), some do homework at night (they are helping themselves), some drink alcohol and smoke drugs at night (Don't want to help folks like that). It's America, you can do as you please, but certainly not universal. And there is no universal Band-Aid to make everybody give a shit about their future.

2. On a lighter note, my individual "made it" story didn't begin when I got a USDA approved lunch. I ate bologna sandwiches and drank Kool-Aid most of my childhood.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

Man, there's a lot of middle class and upper middle class folks here telling us all how easy it is to be poor.

Just quick googling tells me that in 2009, about 94% of all school lunches did not meet USDA standards. Also, studies have found that the new school lunches are healthier (on average) than lunches brought from home. The big issue is the people that don't want the government to dictate what their kids are eating. It's, of course, those same people that want government help when it comes to paying for their unhealthy kid's medical problems.

But go back to being self-righteous telling us how easy it is to shop healthy when you are poor and probably less educated about those sorts of things anyway. And telling us who should have kids and who shouldn't.

There was a rather large bill signed in 2010 that changed how schools do lunch and breakfast. It was done to improve the lunches.

I don't think it's self-righteous. I'm pointing out facts. There are lots of healthy and cheap foods at stores. You guys are treating poor people like invalids incapable of basic common sense. I understand why politicians make excuses for people, not sure why the general public needs to.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think it's self-righteous. I'm pointing out facts. There are lots of healthy and cheap foods at stores. You guys are treating poor people like invalids incapable of basic common sense.

This will probably drop your street cred some, but I agree with you, people have been given universal public education and access to healthy food and it's up to them to make good on the services our taxes provide. If they don't accept those services and put them to good use, additional taxes for additional services isn't going to change that.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Sometimes those lunches are the best meal, or only meal that those kids are going to get. My school is a 9 on there, but we were told that they still have close to 50 students who are considered homeless.

I know, I would think administrators and school boards would need get more creative (without running afoul of federal rules) in not doing one extreme or the other. Providing more food that are only ok health-wise is better than inedible healthier food or junk food.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Canned vegetables have the same nutrients as the "fresh" vegetables you pick up at the store. Plus they don't lose their nutrients nearly as fast when they're stored.

There's also a wealth of information on the internet on how to prepare a healthy meal.

What if I'm poor and I don't have the internet at home and I work too much to make it to the nearest public library (if I even know where that is) in order to get there during the hours they're open to use the free internet thre?

Man people on this board really don't have any conception of what it's really like hmm?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This just isn't true. Frozen veggies are as healthy, and in some cases, healthier than fresh. Since they are flash frozen right away they don't lose nutrients in transition. They also don't require salt like canned ones do.

And 60 seconds in a microwave doesn't take time or skill to prepare.

You guys are creating imaginary boundaries. Maybe people are fat because they like to eat bad food more than good food.

Frozen yes, canned no.

And frozen ones can be covered in cheese or butter sauce or lots of other junk too. It can be a hassle somtimes to find ones that aren't (coming from a guy who buys a ton of frozen vegetables).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

What if I'm poor and I don't have the internet at home and I work too much to make it to the nearest public library (if I even know where that is) in order to get there during the hours they're open to use the free internet thre?

Man people on this board really don't have any conception of what it's really like hmm?

Do mean poor or mentally challenged? Because I've known plenty of poor people that had minimum wage jobs and knew what and where the library was.

[Dutch]

Or perhaps you mean the elderly? They didn't make it to elderly status without knowing what a vegetable was!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Frozen yes, canned no.

And frozen ones can be covered in cheese or butter sauce or lots of other junk too. It can be a hassle somtimes to find ones that aren't (coming from a guy who buys a ton of frozen vegetables).

Canned are fine. In fact some things like Lycopene and beta-carotine are at higher levels in canned vegetables. No one is going to be malnourished or obese from eating canned vegetables. There are more than enough vitamins.

I'm not sure where you shop but every grocery store I've ever been in has bags of frozen vegetables. They're like $1-$1.50 a pound. They sell the cheese covered stuff but they all carry the regular frozen vegetables. Buying vegetables is as easy as it gets.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

What if I'm poor and I don't have the internet at home and I work too much to make it to the nearest public library (if I even know where that is) in order to get there during the hours they're open to use the free internet thre?

Man people on this board really don't have any conception of what it's really like hmm?

And what if this person only has 5 minutes a day to eat and is blockaded into a neighborhood by McDonalds. These McDonalds have run out of salads and you can't get clean water from the faucet so soda is the only option to hydrate and they won't sell you the burger unless you consume the large fries in front of them.

They are poor, not mentally challenged. You don't need the internet to know that vegetables are good for you.

[Jukeman]

http://youtu.be/vX_Vzl-r8NY

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Canned are fine. In fact some things like Lycopene and beta-carotine are at higher levels in canned vegetables. No one is going to be malnourished or obese from eating canned vegetables. There are more than enough vitamins.

I'm not sure where you shop but every grocery store I've ever been in has bags of frozen vegetables. They're like $1-$1.50 a pound. They sell the cheese covered stuff but they all carry the regular frozen vegetables. Buying vegetables is as easy as it gets.

I said I agreed with you . The regular ones are out there. But I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there may be places with smaller selections than our huge suburban grocery stores where they only carry the unhealthy stuff slathered in shit.

Your one example of how they're available doesn't negate the fact that for a significant # of people they aren't.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And what if this person only has 5 minutes a day to eat and is blockaded into a neighborhood by McDonalds. These McDonalds have run out of salads and you can't get clean water from the faucet so soda is the only option to hydrate and they won't sell you the burger unless you consume the large fries in front of them.

They are poor, not mentally challenged. You don't need the internet to know that vegetables are good for you.

Oh ha ha. So funny. My point wasn't about knowing they're good, but knowing recipes to prepare healthy food (not just microwave veggies).

You're such a POS - clinging to defend your POV with all this crap.

[molson]

Have to ever tried to really budget your food spending - to say under $100/month, or less, for one person? You have to forgo fast food, soda, pizza, alcohol, and junk food, and you rely a ton more on canned food, frozen veggies, pasta, water. It you try this for a month I bet you'd have a healthier diet than the average American in the middle class.

Edit: The organic/gourmet food industries are trying to convince wealthy people that they have to shop at Whole Foods to be healthy, but it really isn't true. I'm so glad I have multiple Wincos in my town. They get packed the day after government checks come out but the amount of food you can get there for $50 is amazing. The Whole Foods next door has more exotic and exciting options, of course, but when you start spending money on junk and booze and processed stuff at Winco you get less for your dollar, not more. When you really try to maximize your dollars, your shopping cart starts to look a lot healthier

[RainMaker]

You are treating poor people like complete morons who can't figure out what a vegetable is and how to prepare it. I don't think people are as incompetent as you are making them out to be.

And your constant examples of people working multiple jobs without access to a library (because that's apparently how you learn to cook vegetables) are an incredibly small part of the population.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You are treating poor people like complete morons who can't figure out what a vegetable is and how to prepare it. I don't think people are as incompetent as you are making them out to be.

Disagree.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the states with the highest rates of obesity are also the least educated states.

I really think a large number of people don't know basic nutrition. They eat how their parents ate, who ate how their parents before them ate, etc...

I walk around our local zoo, just over the boarder from Kentucky, and I honestly think some of these people should be charged with child abuse for the condition of their kids

[CU Tiger]

There is also the factor of perceived importance.
I have struggled with my weight my entire life. Even when I was young and poor I was a fat pudgy kid. I always wanted to be smaller and that continues as an overweight late 30s.

Contrast that with many people I know who are much bigger than Ive ever been who are perfectly content to be fat. They either dont know or dont care that it will cause them health problems later in life. There are a whole bunch of people who eat french fries, drink milkshakes, and super size their meals not because they are ignorant but because they simply want to. And I suppose I'm ok with that, public healthcare costs not withstanding.

I think there is a correlation there in education as well. There are a lot of kids with access to education that simply want to take the easy way out and not put in the work..now good parenting can help sway this thought process for sure.

But I feel like the argument is devolving into "everyone wants to eat healthy but poor people cant afford it" vs "poor people wish they could eat healthy but dont know what healthy is." Totally ignoring the fraction (and Id suspect its the majority) that just dont want to eat/be healthy and dont place a premium on it.

We can start a long debate on value of life etc regarding why they feel that way, but I dont think its worth over looking the perspective altogether.

[RainMaker]

Do you really think it's a matter of education? I don't think I could find a single person who doesn't understand a salad is healthier than french fries. That vegetables are healthier than pizza.

I think it has more to do with personal responsibility and impulse control. I think the people who are telling unhealthy people that it's not their fault are doing them a disservice. Telling them it's not their fault they eat poorly, that they should just wait till a Whole Foods joins the neighborhood. Admittedly this is a thing certain politicians have latched on to despite statistics pointing to the contrary. But they are pandering to voters.

[RainMaker]

And I'll add I think better education can be done on things like counting calories, BMI, etc. I think we should be teaching even kids to track their calories. But I don't think that's the cause for obesity in this country.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Do you really think it's a matter of education? I don't think I could find a single person who doesn't understand a salad is healthier than french fries. That vegetables are healthier than pizza.
.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And I'll add I think better education can be done on things like counting calories, BMI, etc. I think we should be teaching even kids to track their calories. But I don't think that's the cause for obesity in this country.

You answer your own question.

Yes, I think most people understand the concept of certain foods being healthier than others, I just don't think they understand how much better they are for you and the long term ramifications of a poor diet. Largely because their parents didn't understand it either and never taught it to them.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You answer your own question.

Yes, I think most people understand the concept of certain foods being healthier than others, I just don't think they understand how much better they are for you and the long term ramifications of a poor diet. Largely because their parents didn't understand it either and never taught it to them.

Now we have a basis for education - if most people now understand, then it can be taught and passed on. That's a positive step.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Now we have a basis for education - if most people now understand, then it can be taught and passed on. That's a positive step.

Yet childhood obesity is at an all time high.

Somethings broken.

[ISiddiqui]

So at what point are some on this thread just going to come out and say that all poor people are lazy and/or gaming the system? It seems to be danced around - talking about personal responsibility and impulse control while minimizing lack of education, talking about not taking advantage of universal public education while minimizing that schools in the US are funded by local property taxes and therefore poor areas have much less money for public school than richer areas. It's just all beating around the bush right? It's just code words for saying all the poor are lazy or irresponsible or cheating things - its all their fault, right?

The chart showing the very low levels of social mobility in the US (look at how low they are when you compare it to other industrialized countries) was also minimized. Makes it easier to blame the victims, doesn't it? I'm not saying there aren't lazy, incompetent, or cheating poor folks, but similar amounts exist among the middle class and rich. (Let's put it in baseball terms, using an example we've all heard, involving the Yankees and smaller payroll/market teams - it isn't that the Yankees never make mistakes. It's that when they do make a mistake, it doesn't ruin them. However, when a smaller team makes a mistake it may indeed ruin them, because they can't use their money to mitigate it)

Ignoring societal circumstances and policies that keep folks in places where they start out from is just being ignorant or deliberately looking the other way because someone else is comfortable.

Fucking threads like this make me want to be a Socialist.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Fucking threads like this make me want to be a Socialist.

If you're actually willing to drop a few classes to help others, I'd respect you hugely. Otherwise, you're really no better than the systems and people you complain about here.

[ISiddiqui]

All of the charity I give (which isn't small) and time I spent helping the homeless and needy (also not small) are merely a drop in the bucket (not saying they aren't appreciated by the folks who receive it, mind.

How about all of us work together to make a more fair and equitable society? Especially beyond thinking private charity will solve all the issues (our churches, while they do great work, cannot come close to handling the needs apparent). Demanding all who work for fairness and equity impoverish themselves is a bit ridiculous - and misses the point that this work is societal.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

All of the charity I give (which isn't small) and time I spent helping the homeless and needy (also not small) are merely a drop in the bucket (not saying they aren't appreciated by the folks who receive it, mind.

How about all of us work together to make a more fair and equitable society? Especially beyond thinking private charity will solve all the issues (our churches, while they do great work, cannot come close to handling the needs apparent). Demanding all who work for fairness and equity impoverish themselves is a bit ridiculous - and misses the point that this work is societal.

Well, big respect for the first part, everyone giving whatever they can afford are backing up what they say and making a big difference in our society. It's more than a drop in the bucket.

Agree on the second part too, I'm just saying the rallying cry can't be how terrible everyone else is and how everybody except us needs to change and help out. Nobody here has said that all poor people are lazy. There just seems to be a disagreement about how many choices poor people have when it comes to food and nutrition. The people who lean one way or the other on that aren't necessarily poor-hating monsters. I don't think constantly branding people as the enemy, whether they be police officers, teachers, poor people, or rich people is particularly productive. You say you want us to "work together" but you harshly shit on anyone that disagrees with you on anything, accusing them of having these broad negative opinions about poor people, or in some other cases, of being racist. Pointing out the availability of nutrients in canned goods isn't poor-hating or racist.

[ISiddiqui]

No one is saying that everyone except us needs to change. Society changing meaning that all of us, even those advocating for change is going to shift in some ways and we need to be willing to go with those changes.

No one has said all poor people are lazy, but there is a LOT of nibbling around it. The disagreement on the choices the poor have ends up with the logical conclusion that if you believe the poor have lots of choices and know about those choices, the reason people are poor comes down to lazy or gaming the system. There is no other answer if your starting point is that.

As DT put it, some folks on this thread ARE 'POS' due to a deliberate obtuseness or acting as if they know the poor better than the poor do themselves - those folks are worthy of shitting on. Like some folks in Washington; they aren't interested in working together at all, so I have no issue with leaving them behind to work with folks who do want to come up with solutions whatever side of the aisle (similar to Dr. King's notions during not only the Civil Rights movement, but his Poor People's campaign - he wasn't against either party or side, he'd work with anyone who wanted to work for justice - but he didn't work 'with' folks who were obviously against a common solution).

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No one is saying that everyone except us needs to change. Society changing meaning that all of us, even those advocating for change is going to shift in some ways and we need to be willing to go with those changes.

No one has said all poor people are lazy, but there is a LOT of nibbling around it. The disagreement on the choices the poor have ends up with the logical conclusion that if you believe the poor have lots of choices and know about those choices, the reason people are poor comes down to lazy or gaming the system. There is no other answer if your starting point is that.

As DT put it, some folks on this thread ARE 'POS' due to a deliberate obtuseness or acting as if they know the poor better than the poor do themselves - those folks are worthy of shitting on. Like some folks in Washington; they aren't interested in working together at all, so I have no issue with leaving them behind to work with folks who do want to come up with solutions whatever side of the aisle (similar to Dr. King's notions during not only the Civil Rights movement, but his Poor People's campaign - he wasn't against either party or side, he'd work with anyone who wanted to work for justice - but he didn't work 'with' folks who were obviously against a common solution).

I somehow don't think Dr. King would be so quick to brand people who think one can eat healthier on a strict budget as pieces of shit beyond redemption.

[ISiddiqui]

Because that's exactly why he was branded as such.... your twisting of the narrative betrays you.

(as does your refusal to engage with a few paragraphs of text and rather make one snippy comment based on one point)