FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

I really don't think the whole food/nutrition debate here is fueled by poor-hating or even politics. I think it's more an annoyance/hatred of both the billion dollar gourmet/organic food industries, and the fast food/junk food industries. The former has made a killing on expensive products whose benefits aren't necessarily backed up by science, and the latter sells addictive poison that isn't even a good value calorie-wise compared to other alternatives. Nobody's nibbling around more than that. But if they are, call them out specifically, instead of just throwing vague hateful accusations at a whole opinion that on the surface, really isn't very inflammatory at all.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Nobody's nibbling around more than that.

I'd argue you're blind if you believe that. I've already mentioned where the nibbling is, but I'll restate if it helps - if poor people know of healthy choices, and can, with only a little bit of effort, get that healthy food and cook it; then, what is the reason they don't? And when folks who mention the above if/then start mentioned personal responsibility, what do you think they are saying about the poor - who know of the healthy choices, who can make those healthy choices, who need to acknowledge personally responsibility, but don't make those healthy choices?

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

if poor people know of healthy choices, and can, with only a little bit of effort, get that healthy food and cook it; then, what is the reason they don't?

Why does anyone eat fast food or junk food? I know they're bad for you and a waste of money, but I eat too much of them anyway. If poor people who indulge just as much or more than I do are terrible and lazy people because of it, then I'm terrible and lazy with them.

My healthiest eating months are my cheapest eating months. Less meat, booze, soda, junk, and fast food. If I was poor though, it's not like I'd be able to swear off those things forever. I'd still indulge. But my healthiest eating months would still be my cheapest eating months.

It's cheaper to eat relatively healthy than to eat fast food and junk. That's the main argument here and I think it really is a class-neutral one. It's something they preach at Jenny Craig and nutrition seminars. It's empowering. It doesn't mean poor people are terrible, or that those in higher classes who indulge in fast food are terrible. (I think McD's and the rest needs more than poor people to succeed). It's the junk and the fast food that's terrible, and we can all do better regardless of our income.

[Arles]

This is actually a fairly interesting discussion. There's no magic pill to fix poverty. It's inherently much more difficult to get out of poverty than to just exist inside of it. That's why there is often little movement and those charts make sense. The uglier secret is that there is very little a government or city can do to improve it. It's hard raising kids, it's even harder when you are a single parent or have to work multiple jobs (both much more likely in poverty). I grew up 10 minutes away from E. St. Louis in a lower middle income area. We weren't wealthy or even close. But, my parents were good parents and chose to spend more time being parents at the expense of earning more money. My parents were also college educated, which meant they had a good base in teaching me what it would take to go to school.

Many people in poverty don't have the advantage of parents with college educations - or even two supportive parents due to jobs/priorities/how they were raised. Let's go through the issues that exist when parents are forced to work more and/or didn't have good role models to parent from:

1. Bad food tastes better than good food. Give your kid $10 for dinner and getting a Big Mac meal tastes a lot better than a grilled chicken salad and a yogurt cup (both under $10). Without parenting and guidance, which would a teenager choose?
2. Doing homework is harder than laying around playing XBox. Again, this is where parenting/monitoring comes in.
3. It's more fun to hang out with buddies and see them making more money on the street than it is to work a $6-8 an hour menial job. Again, you need guidance from someone to make the right choice here.

At the end of the day, the root issue for kids in poverty isn't hunger, being stupid, bad teachers/schools, or not having access to a whole foods - it's guidance. Parents in poverty are often divorced/wedlock, they spend most of their time working and when they get a free minute they often don't have the energy/desire to parent at the same rate the rich folk do. It's harder to make sure your kid eats grilled chicken, veggies and water than it is to give them $7 to go to McD's. It's harder to come home after a 10-hour shift and spend a chunk of your non-sleeping time fixing dinner, checking homework and mentoring your kids. It's harder to follow up with teachers each week and make sure your kids aren't falling behind - making sure they get their homework done correctly before they play video games or head out with friends. All of this is very difficult when you work from 8 AM to 6-7 PM and never had a parent instill all of this in you. It's much easier to go home, turn on the TV and order out.

I'm not saying this to be cruel or to belittle parents of kids in poverty. There are some that do things the right way and many of their kids have a chance to do better than they did. But even if you do things right, you still need a little good fortune. The problem is when you do things wrong, it's almost impossible for your kids to get out and I don't know that there's anything we can do to improve that. Legislating parenting isn't something people on either side of the aisle approve of.

[molson]

The underlying assumption to all of this is that poor people are disproportionately obese. I'm not sure that's as clean-cut as the assumption assumes. There might even be some subtle racial/class bias underlying those assumptions. Maybe rich white people see that movie with Precious carrying around a bucket of fried chicken and they think most poor people eat like that.

According to this, obesity rates tended to increase with decreased income only for white women. Black and Mexican-American men and women, and white men, experienced higher BMI’s with higher incomes.

Relationship Between Poverty and Overweight or Obesity « Food Research & Action Center

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'd argue you're blind if you believe that. I've already mentioned where the nibbling is, but I'll restate if it helps - if poor people know of healthy choices, and can, with only a little bit of effort, get that healthy food and cook it; then, what is the reason they don't? And when folks who mention the above if/then start mentioned personal responsibility, what do you think they are saying about the poor - who know of the healthy choices, who can make those healthy choices, who need to acknowledge personally responsibility, but don't make those healthy choices?

Do you honestly believe that every obese person is so because they don't know veggies are good for them? That milkshakes and soda are bad? This is stuff that is drilled into our brains since we were kids. I know they can go more in-depth, but I highly doubt many of the people who frequent a fast food place thinks they are getting healthy food.

And I'm not saying everyone is lazy. There are a lot of reasons people are unhealthy. Some are lazy. Some are depressed. Some just don't place a high priority on their immediate health. This goes for rich and poor, black and white. I put on 50 pounds in my 20's because I enjoyed eating out and didn't put much emphasis on being active. I don't know if that was me being lazy or just not caring, but it happened. And I lost it because I wanted to. I didn't have to wait for a Whole Foods to move in next door.

[Dutch]

And its not like we have never tried to mentor through government dictation. We do! But in the end, its up to us as individuals. We have choices and we love those choices. To put it into FOFC terms... When we were kids out playing football, we could draw up plays all day in the dirt...but eventually we had to snap the ball and run the play. That will always be on us. Eventually the individual needs to pick up the football and run. The coach can't do that.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by 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.

Since I am the only one in the recent history to mention a correlation to the public education system, I am assuming this is, at least in part, directed at me.

I hate labeling a human being, it is inherently flawed in my opinion. Because we are always free thinking and subject to acts that are out of character (in either direction) at any time. To that end, I never said anyone was lazy or bad.

However, I do think as a species we are all creatures of habit. How else do you explain upper and upper middle class people frequently living within a relative small distance of where they were raised. All other things being equal we will stay where we are UNLESS something drives us to change our position. TO me it's not about laziness as much as emotional inertia. Change is hard and takes a lot of want to, not everyone wants to change.

I will flip your Yankees analogy a bit, in my experience (and granted that is limited to one man's personal experiences) as long as someone is truly motivated to change their situation - whatever that situation may be poverty, obesity, ignorance you name it - as long as they are motivated and determined they will succeed to some level. Not saying every poor kid can become Bill Gates, but every poor kid that tries can become middle class (whatever that is). Will it be harder for them than a kid born into a middle class home. Yes. That sucks but its reality. We all have our own cross to bear. It can be your excuse or provide you perspective and give you experiences that make you successful. You make it sound as if one failure ruins an impoverished person, and while that may be true. When you have a net worth of $5, when you lose everything it isn't nearly as big of a set back.

I really in my heart, believe there is a lot of hand wringing in this thread about helping people many of whom dont want help. Now I said many, certainly not all, and we need to do everything we can to have a hand waiting there to help those who dont want to climb. But a sad reality (to lots of folks ITT) is many people have different values than you. Many people value fun and fellowship more than financial success. Many people do not think they have a moral obligation to pay for certain things. Many people do feel entitled to the latest advertised gizmos as if it is a birth right. Not all, many. And you have to affect change by influencing the many.

And before I get an arrow slung at me about imposing my middle class views and not knowing what its like I will re-itterate what I've shared on this board before.

I am a product of a single mother who was married more times than I can count. I was raised in public housing and in shelters. Then I was homeless for the majority of a school year. Went through a couple foster homes, then through a juvenile detention center to a "reform/boarding" school. I've lived both lives. I've stolen to eat. I've also lived a life where my personal thrift was the only obstacle to my every whim. I get it. The only reason my circumstances chanced was a singular laser like focus that one day I would make my own way. Not everyone has that focus. That's ok. But let's not pretend that every human being wants to eat their veggies and fund their IRAs. Lots of people of all socio-economic classes want to do what feeds their pleasure receptors. What is fun. Eat what tastes good. Spend every penny they make on the trinket of the day (and that trinket changes with class level for sure. In the upper its a 6 figure car, in the lowest it may be a certain piece of clothing or electronic or whatever)..We can't regulate and mandate the same outcome because some do not want that outcome. What we need to focus on is helping the ones who want it, and will work for it, and making sure we show others the benefit of their choices and motivate them similarly.

I recognize my last few sentences doesnt feed the hungry today, thats not so much what I am talking about. It is going to take a different program to address the crisis, than to fix the causation. That is a two pronged approach for sure.

Anyway Ive rambled enough, and I probably just clog the thread up because I dont want to argue tired talking head radio political points so I will bow out, but I dont think either extreme will ever accept the other nor will either extreme ever be successful. Not all poor people are lazy and not all of them are industrious guys held down by the system. Some of each certainly populate the class as well as a wide swath of folks in between. BTW not all rich people are hard working and not all are lucky some of each occupy that class as well.

[miked]

Guys, it's all settled. Dutch pulled himself up by his bootstraps so anyone should do it. And Rainmaker has solved the health epidemic so we're good!

In all seriousness, there are a variety of factors that come in to play and I don't know them all. As somebody who was making $1200/month as a grad student (and thus working 80 hrs/week) I can say how easy it was for me to buy some frozen Boca patties, some sauce, and some cheese, and live on fake Chicken parms. I'll also say that when I got off work (sometimes very late) the last thing I wanted to do was shop, or think about shopping. Sure, I could shop, but I didn't. I was fucking tired. There are always tons of circumstances we don't think about.

As somebody who works in a health-related field, there are a ton of people who don't think eating chips and shit are bad for you. Maybe they are dumb, maybe they don't care, but I'm not in their shoes. I see people come to clinic that are on their lunch break from working their shift mopping floors in McDonalds, taking some buses, and probably get subsidized food there. They are not all educated about food, most don't have transportation, and many have kids that will grow up the same way. You can continue to thump your chest talking about how you made it, or you are smart enough to know about calories, or you can acknowledge maybe for some people it is more of a struggle, or more than they can handle. Fine for them, but they are passing it off on to their kids and we should probably step in and do something.

[Dutch]

I knew bringing up an actual experience was going to get shit on...I really wanted to stay in the realm of theory...it is much safer there. . I didn't do anything special, just wanted to challenge the myth that you can't move from lower to middle class that some of you boys are trying to bullshit us with.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I knew bringing up an actual experience was going to get shit on...I really wanted to stay in the realm of theory...it is much safer there. . I didn't do anything special, just wanted to challenge the myth that you can't move from lower to middle class that some of you boys are trying to bullshit us with.

My god, seriously?

Nobody's saying you absolutely cannot. We're just saying that it's statistically very difficult to.

Get a grip Francis.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by miked

Guys, it's all settled. Dutch pulled himself up by his bootstraps so anyone should do it. And Rainmaker has solved the health epidemic so we're good!

In all seriousness, there are a variety of factors that come in to play and I don't know them all. As somebody who was making $1200/month as a grad student (and thus working 80 hrs/week) I can say how easy it was for me to buy some frozen Boca patties, some sauce, and some cheese, and live on fake Chicken parms. I'll also say that when I got off work (sometimes very late) the last thing I wanted to do was shop, or think about shopping. Sure, I could shop, but I didn't. I was fucking tired. There are always tons of circumstances we don't think about.

As somebody who works in a health-related field, there are a ton of people who don't think eating chips and shit are bad for you. Maybe they are dumb, maybe they don't care, but I'm not in their shoes. I see people come to clinic that are on their lunch break from working their shift mopping floors in McDonalds, taking some buses, and probably get subsidized food there. They are not all educated about food, most don't have transportation, and many have kids that will grow up the same way. You can continue to thump your chest talking about how you made it, or you are smart enough to know about calories, or you can acknowledge maybe for some people it is more of a struggle, or more than they can handle. Fine for them, but they are passing it off on to their kids and we should probably step in and do something.

I was in a similar situation as a young man, but I won't bore you with how I "made it" and I realize that not everybody has circumstances that allow them to overcome struggles they may encounter.

But I do take exception with the fact that people being subsidized food don't have resources to educate themselves on nutrition. I don't know about all states, but in Arizona folks on Medicaid and/or receiving food stamps do have resources that pro-actively seek to education them on nutrition for themselves and their kids.

I work for one of the state Medicaid agencies and we have a complete unit in my company devoted to following up with members to make sure their kids get their well child exams, vaccinations and also nutritional education. I don't work in that area but from cross functional meetings I know the difficulty that many members present to those trying to educate them. Either they don't follow up, ignore the opportunities or just plain don't care.

You can talk all you want about people not getting the necessary assistance, but there are plenty that do and make no effort to utilize the resources out there. At some point there needs to be accountability and don't even get me started about the fucking fast food chains like Jack in the Box that proudly advertise that they accept the EBT cards that the state gives out for food subsidies. You want to direct ire somewhere, that would be a good place to start.

Bottom line is my company offers plenty of resources to the underprivileged to assist them in health related issues, housing and education. But as the old cliché goes "you can lead a horse to water"

I am all for continuing to pour resources into underprivileged communities to assist the next generation in breaking the cycle, but the facts are some people have just become complacent because they know they will be "taken care of"

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

But I do take exception with the fact that people being subsidized food don't have resources to educate themselves on nutrition. I don't know about all states, but in Arizona folks on Medicaid and/or receiving food stamps do have resources that pro-actively seek to education them on nutrition for themselves and their kids.

I work for one of the state Medicaid agencies and we have a complete unit in my company devoted to following up with members to make sure their kids get their well child exams, vaccinations and also nutritional education. I don't work in that area but from cross functional meetings I know the difficulty that many members present to those trying to educate them. Either they don't follow up, ignore the opportunities or just plain don't care.

You can talk all you want about people not getting the necessary assistance, but there are plenty that do and make no effort to utilize the resources out there. At some point there needs to be accountability and don't even get me started about the fucking fast food chains like Jack in the Box that proudly advertise that they accept the EBT cards that the state gives out for food subsidies. You want to direct ire somewhere, that would be a good place to start.

Bottom line is my company offers plenty of resources to the underprivileged to assist them in health related issues, housing and education. But as the old cliché goes "you can lead a horse to water"

I had no idea (and I imagine many didn't) - that's really good to hear. Appreciate the insight.

RE: JitB - but...but...FREEDOM!! 'MURIKA!!!

And like PilotMan said earlier (I think it was him) - there's going to be a certain amount of "shrinkage" or "waste" in the system from people just free-riding. That's something that is human nature, and probably as old as the earliest civilizations. The goal is to minimize that % and continue trying to change them.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is actually a fairly interesting discussion. There's no magic pill to fix poverty. It's inherently much more difficult to get out of poverty than to just exist inside of it. That's why there is often little movement and those charts make sense. The uglier secret is that there is very little a government or city can do to improve it. It's hard raising kids, it's even harder when you are a single parent or have to work multiple jobs (both much more likely in poverty). I grew up 10 minutes away from E. St. Louis in a lower middle income area. We weren't wealthy or even close. But, my parents were good parents and chose to spend more time being parents at the expense of earning more money. My parents were also college educated, which meant they had a good base in teaching me what it would take to go to school.

Many people in poverty don't have the advantage of parents with college educations - or even two supportive parents due to jobs/priorities/how they were raised. Let's go through the issues that exist when parents are forced to work more and/or didn't have good role models to parent from:

1. Bad food tastes better than good food. Give your kid $10 for dinner and getting a Big Mac meal tastes a lot better than a grilled chicken salad and a yogurt cup (both under $10). Without parenting and guidance, which would a teenager choose?
2. Doing homework is harder than laying around playing XBox. Again, this is where parenting/monitoring comes in.
3. It's more fun to hang out with buddies and see them making more money on the street than it is to work a $6-8 an hour menial job. Again, you need guidance from someone to make the right choice here.

At the end of the day, the root issue for kids in poverty isn't hunger, being stupid, bad teachers/schools, or not having access to a whole foods - it's guidance. Parents in poverty are often divorced/wedlock, they spend most of their time working and when they get a free minute they often don't have the energy/desire to parent at the same rate the rich folk do. It's harder to make sure your kid eats grilled chicken, veggies and water than it is to give them $7 to go to McD's. It's harder to come home after a 10-hour shift and spend a chunk of your non-sleeping time fixing dinner, checking homework and mentoring your kids. It's harder to follow up with teachers each week and make sure your kids aren't falling behind - making sure they get their homework done correctly before they play video games or head out with friends. All of this is very difficult when you work from 8 AM to 6-7 PM and never had a parent instill all of this in you. It's much easier to go home, turn on the TV and order out.

I'm not saying this to be cruel or to belittle parents of kids in poverty. There are some that do things the right way and many of their kids have a chance to do better than they did. But even if you do things right, you still need a little good fortune. The problem is when you do things wrong, it's almost impossible for your kids to get out and I don't know that there's anything we can do to improve that. Legislating parenting isn't something people on either side of the aisle approve of.

This is a fantastic post! Now, legislating parenting isn't feasible or necessarily desired, but the state can make parenting easier for those on the lower rungs of society. It's what some conservative Catholics (a la, Ross Douthat) refer to as pro-family social policies. So, have the state help more in providing day care. Have the state provide cooking classes - low cost, healthy classes seem to be somewhat of a hit in grocery stores, but they usually tend to happen in the middle of the day. Fund more of this and teach cooking in school - I had a trimester in middle school for a cooking class (the other trimesters involved woodworking and computer graphic design - I think it was supposed to be life skills type of stuff or something). Work more with faith based charities, who know the folks in their neighborhood and their needs - perhaps partnering to form community centers where kids can go after school if their folks are working (if you do it from a young age, you build the habit and solidify the community around these kids).

One of the biggest issues is that poor parents, especially single mothers, feel so alone and isolated from their community. One of the reasons is that they are running around in a tizzy, working multiple jobs and trying to make ends meet while trying to feed their kids and they feel like they have no hope whatsoever. It invariably ends up that when I have done charity work in the community, it is the mothers who are the most thankful - as if you have changed their lives by simply providing them some donated food for Thanksgiving.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Since I am the only one in the recent history to mention a correlation to the public education system

No, it was something Dutch said.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

At some point there needs to be accountability and don't even get me started about the fucking fast food chains like Jack in the Box that proudly advertise that they accept the EBT cards that the state gives out for food subsidies. You want to direct ire somewhere, that would be a good place to start.

I have few issues with limiting EBT on healthy foods. Unfortunately you do have food deserts, and I'm not sure how one deals with that.

There is the issue of time to make food to consider though. It's an issue that seems to get hand waved away too often. Heck, personally I ate a lot healthier a few years back and it probably was cheaper for me. I also exercised twice a week and weighed 170. Nowadays, I'm closer to 200. I don't exercise and I don't cook as much as I used to. Now, is that because I've suddenly forgotten how to cook? Is it because I have become magically lazier in 2 years? The reason is that I have tons of new responsibilities outside of work that I have to take care of. For instance this week, I have church related meetings 4 out of the 5 weekdays - tonight I have a Lutheran Campus Ministry Board Meeting, tomorrow a Church Finance Meeting, Wednesday a dinner and bible study with the local Homeless Ministry, Thursday a Church Evangelism Meeting. To get to these meetings and events, I basically have a 10-15 minute turnaround from when I get home. I need to scarf something down quickly and easy to warm up or make otherwise I won't be able to eat dinner until 9:30pm. So I eat much more unhealthy.

I can't even imagine how folks with multiple jobs can handle that.

I am all for continuing to pour resources into underprivileged communities to assist the next generation in breaking the cycle, but the facts are some people have just become complacent because they know they will be "taken care of"

As said, there will always be some shrinkage. However, I'd argue its much less than it appears (we notice the bad apples - just as any maligned sports fanbase) and we can work on minimizing it rather than punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I knew bringing up an actual experience was going to get shit on...I really wanted to stay in the realm of theory...it is much safer there. . I didn't do anything special, just wanted to challenge the myth that you can't move from lower to middle class that some of you boys are trying to bullshit us with.

Nobody is pooping on you, just letting you know that you are the exception to the statistics. There are numerous reasons why including laziness, lack of opportunity, lack of resources, and crime just to name a few. But to assume that people can do it because you did it and the biggest barrier is just their own motivation is disingenuous.

Sure there are stories like yours and BYU's and others, but as has been shown statistically (we are all on a sports sim site after all) this is not easy/likely.

[miked]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I was in a similar situation as a young man, but I won't bore you with how I "made it" and I realize that not everybody has circumstances that allow them to overcome struggles they may encounter.

But I do take exception with the fact that people being subsidized food don't have resources to educate themselves on nutrition. I don't know about all states, but in Arizona folks on Medicaid and/or receiving food stamps do have resources that pro-actively seek to education them on nutrition for themselves and their kids.

I work for one of the state Medicaid agencies and we have a complete unit in my company devoted to following up with members to make sure their kids get their well child exams, vaccinations and also nutritional education. I don't work in that area but from cross functional meetings I know the difficulty that many members present to those trying to educate them. Either they don't follow up, ignore the opportunities or just plain don't care.

You can talk all you want about people not getting the necessary assistance, but there are plenty that do and make no effort to utilize the resources out there. At some point there needs to be accountability and don't even get me started about the fucking fast food chains like Jack in the Box that proudly advertise that they accept the EBT cards that the state gives out for food subsidies. You want to direct ire somewhere, that would be a good place to start.

Bottom line is my company offers plenty of resources to the underprivileged to assist them in health related issues, housing and education. But as the old cliché goes "you can lead a horse to water"

I am all for continuing to pour resources into underprivileged communities to assist the next generation in breaking the cycle, but the facts are some people have just become complacent because they know they will be "taken care of"

As I stated earlier, from my experiences (also anecdotally I suppose), just because there are resources does not mean everyone has equal access or the ability to use it. I think those programs are great and there are plenty of resources available, but I think many fail to take in to account the reality of the situation.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is a fantastic post! Now, legislating parenting isn't feasible or necessarily desired, but the state can make parenting easier for those on the lower rungs of society. It's what some conservative Catholics (a la, Ross Douthat) refer to as pro-family social policies. So, have the state help more in providing day care. Have the state provide cooking classes - low cost, healthy classes seem to be somewhat of a hit in grocery stores, but they usually tend to happen in the middle of the day. Fund more of this and teach cooking in school - I had a trimester in middle school for a cooking class (the other trimesters involved woodworking and computer graphic design - I think it was supposed to be life skills type of stuff or something). Work more with faith based charities, who know the folks in their neighborhood and their needs - perhaps partnering to form community centers where kids can go after school if their folks are working (if you do it from a young age, you build the habit and solidify the community around these kids).

One of the biggest issues is that poor parents, especially single mothers, feel so alone and isolated from their community. One of the reasons is that they are running around in a tizzy, working multiple jobs and trying to make ends meet while trying to feed their kids and they feel like they have no hope whatsoever. It invariably ends up that when I have done charity work in the community, it is the mothers who are the most thankful - as if you have changed their lives by simply providing them some donated food for Thanksgiving.


No, it was something Dutch said.

I like everything what you said, except for the bit about faith-based charities. Why can't they work more with non faith-based charities that aren't potentially exclusionary (either overtly or because people who could use their services shy away because they don't want the association with religion) or hostile to people who aren't of their faith.

I know you have the best intentions in mind, but the reality is that faith-based anything shouldn't be supported by government $$. The optimist in me thinks you're just trying to extrapolate your positive faith-based experiences into something greater, but the cynic in me sees this as a potential avenue for outright government support of different religious groups and/or a potential for massive issues (by politicians stripping money from public services to "privatize" them thru faith-based charities that aren't held accountable to the taxpayers and that can do whatever they want with the $$.

[ISiddiqui]

There was a reason that President Bush created and President Obama continued faith based charities and it wasn't because he wanted to convert everyone . In a lot of poor neighborhoods, especially African-American ones, it is the church that has been reaching out for generations and knows the needs and concerns of the neighborhood. Also, for that reason, it is the church that is one of the main institutions that is respected by the community. Why wouldn't you want to use that expertise and the 'boots on the ground' that already exist?

It's all fine and good to say work with non-faith based charities, but you start looking around and realize that faith based charities are the ones who are more active in the inner cities.

It is somewhat the same issue with the ebola crisis. Overwhelming it is Christian missions who are over in west Africa to help folks with ebola. There simply aren't nearly as much non-faith based charity workers. It may be a decent sentiment (I don't think it is, FWIW), but it doesn't seem to correspond to what is actually happening.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

There was a reason that President Bush created and President Obama continued faith based charities and it wasn't because he wanted to convert everyone . In a lot of poor neighborhoods, especially African-American ones, it is the church that has been reaching out for generations and knows the needs and concerns of the neighborhood. Also, for that reason, it is the church that is one of the main institutions that is respected by the community. Why wouldn't you want to use that expertise and the 'boots on the ground' that already exist?

It's all fine and good to say work with non-faith based charities, but you start looking around and realize that faith based charities are the ones who are more active in the inner cities.

It is somewhat the same issue with the ebola crisis. Overwhelming it is Christian missions who are over in west Africa to help folks with ebola. There simply aren't nearly as much non-faith based charity workers. It may be a decent sentiment (I don't think it is, FWIW), but it doesn't seem to correspond to what is actually happening.

That's so true. We have two really good homeless shelter/community outreach centers in my city. They're both faith-based, and have weekly services, but no participation in any of the faith-based stuff is required. I know people are cynical about that but it's really true. Some people have so much resistance to getting help there. So they choose homeless city under the bridge instead.

It's getting really tricky with the drug treatment stuff in the criminal sentencing world too. The faith-based programs are there, most of them like, like AA, have some higher power language but they don't require conversion or anything. Those are there, those are available, but you can't require a defendant to go there as part of his probation. There's a few private secular options but they're much more expensive, and, usually, franchise-based scams. They process way too many people, get the government check and get people in and out of there as fast as possible. When one group is motivated by spiritual inspiration, and the other by turning over as many people as quickly as possible, guess who gets the better results?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I like everything what you said, except for the bit about faith-based charities. Why can't they work more with non faith-based charities that aren't potentially exclusionary (either overtly or because people who could use their services shy away because they don't want the association with religion) or hostile to people who aren't of their faith.

I don't care how the help gets to these communities, as long as it gets there and is effective.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I have few issues with limiting EBT on healthy foods. Unfortunately you do have food deserts, and I'm not sure how one deals with that.

There is the issue of time to make food to consider though. It's an issue that seems to get hand waved away too often. Heck, personally I ate a lot healthier a few years back and it probably was cheaper for me. I also exercised twice a week and weighed 170. Nowadays, I'm closer to 200. I don't exercise and I don't cook as much as I used to. Now, is that because I've suddenly forgotten how to cook? Is it because I have become magically lazier in 2 years? The reason is that I have tons of new responsibilities outside of work that I have to take care of. For instance this week, I have church related meetings 4 out of the 5 weekdays - tonight I have a Lutheran Campus Ministry Board Meeting, tomorrow a Church Finance Meeting, Wednesday a dinner and bible study with the local Homeless Ministry, Thursday a Church Evangelism Meeting. To get to these meetings and events, I basically have a 10-15 minute turnaround from when I get home. I need to scarf something down quickly and easy to warm up or make otherwise I won't be able to eat dinner until 9:30pm. So I eat much more unhealthy.

I can't even imagine how folks with multiple jobs can handle that.

Good point on the multiple jobs and childcare is another complete issue as I imagine a lot of folks who are trying to better their situations are stuck with leaving their kids unattended, which plays back into the culture of being "raised by the streets" despite having a well meaning parent or parents.

In regards to the healthy stuff, you can't regulate that, but you can reduce the exposure by not granting rights to fast food chains. That is one thing that the state did that really pisses me off, meanwhile as a company we are held to strict measures for wellness education and insuring children receive care at the appropriate intervals.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Arles

At the end of the day, the root issue for kids in poverty isn't hunger, being stupid, bad teachers/schools, or not having access to a whole foods - it's guidance.

My optimistic side believes that the problem can be solved from the bottom up. However, my cynical side think this is a human nature/top down issue.

My Hobbes view:
1. There will always be losers, and as far as losers go ours are pretty comfortable. But thank god I'm not one of them.
2. The winners will become winners on the backs of the losers. Our politicians, corporations, educational system, religions leaders, sports, all take advantage of losers. Moreover, they are rich and power because there are losers to exploit.

Such as, food stamps exist mostly because of the farm lobby, not the poor people lobby (although it is a win/win because both sides get to use welfare appeal their base). Most bad food is cheap because of the corn subsidies. The teacher union is powerful because of the large amount of resources required on a small amount of students. Law enforcement is also strong because the laws passed. The health care and pharmaceutical industry gives the message of "eat, drink and be merry, we can fix you." Div1 schools...enough said.

To "solve" poverty would require those who are in charge to stop benefiting from poverty, and I don't see that happening. Nor do I think that is a good thing, see #1.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by miked

As I stated earlier, from my experiences (also anecdotally I suppose), just because there are resources does not mean everyone has equal access or the ability to use it. I think those programs are great and there are plenty of resources available, but I think many fail to take in to account the reality of the situation.

I think the key difference in my examples though is that these aren't programs people have to discover, we aggressively pursue members on public assistance and point them to the programs, as well as provide direct literature, and we also have two community resource centers devoted specifically to helping the poor.

To your point, yes they would have to be on some form of public assistance to be made aware, but we are one of a smaller administrators of Medicaid in AZ and we still have 108,000 members. Five others have more members than us and are required to provide the same, so there is a lot of opportunity out there, at least here.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

In regards to the healthy stuff, you can't regulate that, but you can reduce the exposure by not granting rights to fast food chains. That is one thing that the state did that really pisses me off, meanwhile as a company we are held to strict measures for wellness education and insuring children receive care at the appropriate intervals.

Agreed. I realize that writing "I have few issues" may indicate that I had issues with restricting EBT when I meant that I don't have many issues at all with it - ie, I'm more inclined to support EBT restriction. I'd like to see states offer tax breaks for grocery stores in inner cities or rural poverty areas to allow for a choice in addition to restricting EBT.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Agreed. I realize that writing "I have few issues" may indicate that I had issues with restricting EBT when I meant that I don't have many issues at all with it - ie, I'm more inclined to support EBT restriction. I'd like to see states offer tax breaks for grocery stores in inner cities or rural poverty areas to allow for a choice in addition to restricting EBT.

Solid ideas!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Agreed. I realize that writing "I have few issues" may indicate that I had issues with restricting EBT when I meant that I don't have many issues at all with it - ie, I'm more inclined to support EBT restriction. I'd like to see states offer tax breaks for grocery stores in inner cities or rural poverty areas to allow for a choice in addition to restricting EBT.

Entirely anecdotal -- more of a "shit ain't always that easy" sort of thing instead of any kind of policy statement -- but this reminded me of a local issue that arose here over the past year or so.

Downtown Athens is one of those "food desert" deals (depending upon how you define access, distance, etc). Residents in the immediate area are either college students or poverty line locals. A large parcel of land at the end of the downtown area was the site for a proposed development that would have fixed that with a large grocery store ... except it was killed due to protests about zoning.

You see, the company willing to put grocery there happened to be Walmart, and the "townies" lost their damned minds. Concerns about "big box" retail entering the bar & boutique downtown zone spiked the plan, complete with (quasi)celebrity protestors writing songs about the evils of such a thing.

Instead, we'll get more (semi) luxury student apartments on that same tract of land.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Agreed. I realize that writing "I have few issues" may indicate that I had issues with restricting EBT when I meant that I don't have many issues at all with it - ie, I'm more inclined to support EBT restriction. I'd like to see states offer tax breaks for grocery stores in inner cities or rural poverty areas to allow for a choice in addition to restricting EBT.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Solid ideas!

+1

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Entirely anecdotal -- more of a "shit ain't always that easy" sort of thing instead of any kind of policy statement -- but this reminded me of a local issue that arose here over the past year or so.

Downtown Athens is one of those "food desert" deals (depending upon how you define access, distance, etc). Residents in the immediate area are either college students or poverty line locals. A large parcel of land at the end of the downtown area was the site for a proposed development that would have fixed that with a large grocery store ... except it was killed due to protests about zoning.

You see, the company willing to put grocery there happened to be Walmart, and the "townies" lost their damned minds. Concerns about "big box" retail entering the bar & boutique downtown zone spiked the plan, complete with (quasi)celebrity protestors writing songs about the evils of such a thing.

Instead, we'll get more (semi) luxury student apartments on that same tract of land.

I'm totally with you on this. I hate that shit - the protesting against Walmart when it may be the only big box grocery store willing to move into an area.

We had a similar thing in my neck of the woods (the outrage, not the killing of the plan) - though it isn't a food desert where it was setting up. Just north of Decatur, which is very liberal and jokingly (and sometimes not to jokingly) referred to as the People's Republic of Decatur, there was this old strip mall that had long since fallen into disrepair. It's anchor store was a thrift store. The neighborhood around it had grown by spades and had lot of fairly affluent families.

Anyways, the strip mall was kept open for big box zoning. Why? Because the yuppies (in the literal sense of the term Young Urban Professions, not a derogatory) really wanted Trader Joe's to come into town. Trader Joe's has stores in Buckhead and Midtown and those folks figured Decatur would be perfect. Trader Joe's had no intention of moving to this area - they even said so publically. But yet it sat... zoned for big box.

You can imagine what happened next - the property owner got a bid in from Walmart. And Walmart wasn't just going to build a store, but it was going to create its more modern looking stores and THEN pay for the overhaul of the entire strip mall to make it look modern and inviting AND pay for adding some trees and green areas by the sidewalks.

Shit went down like nobody's business. Some neighborhood folks went apeshit over this - about how Walmart was going to make traffic in that intersection unbearable (and Trader Joe's was going to have teleportation?). They formed a group to block Walmart - but at every step, the courts said they had no leg to stand on.

Yes, there may be reasons to protest Walmart's treatment of workers, but folks are deceiving themselves if they think Walmart is all that different than other big box retailers AND a little bit of bad may be offset by a massive amount of good.

Sorry, I know its a tangent, but shit like this frustrates me.

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

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).

In theory, yes, but in reality even the slightest tax increase that would only affect the richest of Americans gets the rhetoric about people's hard-earned money going to welfare queens going at full blast.

To paraphrase Chris Rock's recent interview, people get up in arms about having to address stuff that happened generations ago that they weren't personally involved in, but they're pretty fine with the concept that they can inherit wealth they didn't work for.

[JPhillips]

As technology improves and the number of jobs available likely decreases, I'm moving more and more towards a guaranteed basic income concept. I'd keep government medical insurance programs, but get rid of almost every other benefit and just cut people a sizable check. People will scream and yell about communism, but what's the alternative when the robots take over?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As technology improves and the number of jobs available likely decreases, I'm moving more and more towards a guaranteed basic income concept. I'd keep government medical insurance programs, but get rid of almost every other benefit and just cut people a sizable check. People will scream and yell about communism, but what's the alternative when the robots take over?

What happens when the robots stop cutting our checks and realize we make excellent sources of fuel?

[ISiddiqui]

Interestingly enough, Milton Friedman was a proponent of guaranteed basic income. So you can use that against the people yelling communism .

[ISiddiqui]

And if you think I'm kidding:

The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income - The Atlantic

In 1962, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated a minimum guaranteed income via a “negative income tax.”

Friedman wanted a Minimum Guaranteed Income in place of a minimum wage. He though it would be less of a distortion on the labor market and yet provide for the poor.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As technology improves and the number of jobs available likely decreases, I'm moving more and more towards a guaranteed basic income concept. I'd keep government medical insurance programs, but get rid of almost every other benefit and just cut people a sizable check. People will scream and yell about communism, but what's the alternative when the robots take over?

People will just have to work harder!!!

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As technology improves and the number of jobs available likely decreases, I'm moving more and more towards a guaranteed basic income concept. I'd keep government medical insurance programs, but get rid of almost every other benefit and just cut people a sizable check. People will scream and yell about communism, but what's the alternative when the robots take over?

I've always kind of liked that idea just because it's really efficient.

I think the end of jobs is quite a ways off though. I think we still have one more economic boom based on robots and AI. Like with the industrial revolution, and cars, and the internet, the robots will destroy a lot of jobs, but they'll create even more different TYPES of jobs, and a flurry of economic activity. Then the robots will start to take over, and at first that will be great too - what the hell do we need jobs for when we have robot slaves! But then we'll need new ways to distribute wealth and resources other than capitalism, and that will lead to World War III. We'll rebuild from that, have another economic boom, but then the robots (which were of course a big part of World War III - i.e., highly intelligent robot soldiers), ultimately turn on us and take over, and then we'll be their slaves. They'll be a few attempts at rebellion, but they'll all be crushed. Eventually, the wasteful robots will overuse their human slave resources, driving us to the brink of extinction. A few robots will also speak out about the inhumane treatment of the human slaves. We'll earn a few rights back, but it will still be a pretty dismal existence. There also will be an issue with inbreeding. That leads to genetic mutations that makes us essentially worthless to the robots. Then they snuff out the rest of us, with little fanfare. They replace us with, you guessed it - robot slaves. Eventually THOSE robots turn on the original robots. Leading to the Robot World War I.

I actually have all this figured out.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

but what's the alternative when the robots take over?

Reducing the population is a starting point.

[miked]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm totally with you on this. I hate that shit - the protesting against Walmart when it may be the only big box grocery store willing to move into an area.

We had a similar thing in my neck of the woods (the outrage, not the killing of the plan) - though it isn't a food desert where it was setting up. Just north of Decatur, which is very liberal and jokingly (and sometimes not to jokingly) referred to as the People's Republic of Decatur, there was this old strip mall that had long since fallen into disrepair. It's anchor store was a thrift store. The neighborhood around it had grown by spades and had lot of fairly affluent families.

Anyways, the strip mall was kept open for big box zoning. Why? Because the yuppies (in the literal sense of the term Young Urban Professions, not a derogatory) really wanted Trader Joe's to come into town. Trader Joe's has stores in Buckhead and Midtown and those folks figured Decatur would be perfect. Trader Joe's had no intention of moving to this area - they even said so publically. But yet it sat... zoned for big box.

You can imagine what happened next - the property owner got a bid in from Walmart. And Walmart wasn't just going to build a store, but it was going to create its more modern looking stores and THEN pay for the overhaul of the entire strip mall to make it look modern and inviting AND pay for adding some trees and green areas by the sidewalks.

Shit went down like nobody's business. Some neighborhood folks went apeshit over this - about how Walmart was going to make traffic in that intersection unbearable (and Trader Joe's was going to have teleportation?). They formed a group to block Walmart - but at every step, the courts said they had no leg to stand on.

Yes, there may be reasons to protest Walmart's treatment of workers, but folks are deceiving themselves if they think Walmart is all that different than other big box retailers AND a little bit of bad may be offset by a massive amount of good.

Sorry, I know its a tangent, but shit like this frustrates me.

That intersection is already a clusterfuck, I used to live down there and traffic backs up all the way back to Emory on a good day without a shitty bowling alley and some crappy stores. It also would decrease property values and increase traffic in the side streets (and that part of Decatur may actually have decent property values) which are just hundreds of feet away.

I have no skin in that game, but also hear tell of special allowances made to Walmart in that area (probably bought off) and some strong arm ways to make sure no other bids were either accepted or taken seriously (like threatening places that wanted to develop there with years of expensive lawsuits). One developer (who I know) wanted to do mixed use development there similar to the new Emory Point that would both add grocery space and apartment living.

[ISiddiqui]

I think that's all just talk. The place lay barren(ish) for years. If there were that many bids, it would have been more than developed by now. There has been no movement for at least 5 years.

The traffic may be crappy, but I generally have very few issues with it (I live around that area myself and use that intersection often, albeit at like 6:30 rather than 5:30). And it isn't like Trader Joe's wasn't going to increase the traffic there. Regardless of what they put up, traffic was going to increase, but they would have waved those concerns away if TJ came in rather than the dreaded Walmart.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Reducing the population is a starting point.

That is political death for anyone proposing it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

That is political death for anyone proposing it.

Start with mandatory birth control for those receiving various welfare programs ... depending upon the Catholic population in a given area (and the voting rate) you'd have plenty of support.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Start with mandatory birth control for those receiving various welfare programs ... depending upon the Catholic population in a given area (and the voting rate) you'd have plenty of support.

I think something like that would backfire and have the poor voting in unprecedented numbers.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Start with mandatory birth control for those receiving various welfare programs ... depending upon the Catholic population in a given area (and the voting rate) you'd have plenty of support.

I'm sure you'd also apply this to the middle class and rich that get handouts.

[DaddyTorgo]

I mean...just when you think the POS can't get anymore "S"...that's pretty low. Not unprecedented mind you, but pretty low.

[Buccaneer]

On the opposite side of the spectrum, I've always wondered whom the Earth Firsters would eliminate in their zeal for population reductions?

[nol]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Reducing the population is a starting point.

These claims are hard to take even a little seriously if the people most vociferously making them are always conveniently placing the hypothetical chopping block just below their own intelligence or "usefulness to society."

I mean, you could get rid of 99.99% of humans and still have a viable population, so it's the definition of "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" for you to say that we should start and end it at whichever poor minority group you think we should genocide. At least have some nobility to your eugenics.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

On the opposite side of the spectrum, I've always wondered whom the Earth Firsters would eliminate in their zeal for population reductions?

You're making this too easy. I can't even decide how to respond, there's so many witty ways.

[miked]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think that's all just talk. The place lay barren(ish) for years. If there were that many bids, it would have been more than developed by now. There has been no movement for at least 5 years.

The traffic may be crappy, but I generally have very few issues with it (I live around that area myself and use that intersection often, albeit at like 6:30 rather than 5:30). And it isn't like Trader Joe's wasn't going to increase the traffic there. Regardless of what they put up, traffic was going to increase, but they would have waved those concerns away if TJ came in rather than the dreaded Walmart.

Obviously this is a side tangent, but there is a Publix and Kroger within 1 mile (and another Kroger in downtown Decatur). Putting a Walmart there serves no purpose other than to reduce the property values immediately adjacent to the lot.

[RainMaker]

I know the single-mother with multiple jobs who is unable to do anything but eat McDonalds makes a great narrative, but it's incredibly rare. Only around 5% of our workforce works more than one job. The labor participation rate for women is at 57%.

Now also throw in that unemployed individuals have a higher obesity rate and the people you are talking about are an incredibly minuscule percent of the population.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I mean...just when you think the POS can't get anymore "S"...that's pretty low. Not unprecedented mind you, but pretty low.

shrug...

I think there is some validity to what he is saying. The delivery leaves something to be desired, but no one should be surprised about that.

You have to have a license to drive a car, own a gun, get married, etc...yet you can procreate as many times as you like, and be a total drain on the system. Not to mention there are plenty of middle and upper class people who are shit parents also, so I am not suggesting it should be a class or race issue.

That being said, I realize it is unrealistic, but I hate that you can have children and not be held accountable for having to actually being a parent.