ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL WOULD increase US food insecurity

  1. http://www.cbpp.org/2-23-07fa.htm
    administration proposal would cut
    over 300,000 people off food stamps
    by stacy dean and dorothy rosenbaum
    the president's budget includes a provision that would cut the food stamp program by $540 million over the next five years (and by $1.2 billion over ten years) by taking more than 300,000 low-income people off the program in an average month. the administration would achieve these savings by stripping states of flexibility provided in the 1996 welfare law that allows states to coordinate certain aspects of eligibility for the food stamp program with eligibility rules used for state tanf programs. more than 40 states take advantage of this option; a dozen states make very broad use of the option.
    the impact of the proposed cut would be borne primarily by low-income working families with children. these families would be made ineligible for food stamps because, even though their net income (income after deducting certain expenses such as shelter or child care costs) is below the poverty line, they have gross income modestly above 130 percent of the poverty line (the food stamp program's gross income limit) or assets modestly above the food stamp program's $2,000 asset limit. the asset limit has not been changed-or even adjusted for inflation -- in more than 20 years.
    •  
  2. 88 Comments

  3. by   Shamira Aizza
    Hasn't changed in 20 years....hmmm. I thought Bush has only been president for a little over five years.

    I also thought that the new majority supposedly made sweeping changes for low-income workers with children with the new minimum wage legislation.

    Since we can't all be rich, and since they haven't figured out that it's statistically impossible to not have a population without a certain number who simply don't make as much as the others, I guess they won't be happy until we are all destitute except for our socialistic politicians.
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    the point of the post was that the states were using a food stamp eligibility system to encourage and support work and not dependency.

    the other point was that by not raising the asset limit (assets include the car needed to get to a job) that children of poor families would be at greater risk of malnutrition and assorted health problems.

    this is why adequate nutrition is important for improving the long term outcomes for families: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/ab...%20history.pdf
    [font=cgtimes]
    hunter was vitally concerned with hunger,
    particularly among the children in poor
    families. " . . . but the poverty of any family
    is likely to be most serious at the very time
    when the children most need nurture, when
    they are most dependent, and when they are
    obtaining the only education which they are
    ever to receive. guidance and supervision of
    the parents are impossible because they must
    work; the nurture is insufficient because there
    are too many hungry mouths to feed; learning
    is difficult because hungry stomachs and
    languid bodies and thin blood are not able to
    feed the brain.
    ...
    [font=cgtimes]
    john spargo's [font=cgtimes,italic]the bitter cry of the
    children.
    [font=cgtimes]like hunter, spargo dwelt
    extensively upon the misfortunes of children
    and the effect of malnourishment upon their
    physical and mental well-being. he estimated,
    [font=cgtimes]
    14
    [font=cgtimes]mrs. duane mowry, [font=cgtimes,italic]pennv lunches in milwaukee
    schools
    [font=cgtimes], american city 4 (6), p. 283-288.

    [font=cgtimes]
    after very careful study, that "not less than
    2,000,000 children of school age in the united
    states are the victims of poverty which denies
    them common necessities, particularly
    adequate nourishment.... such children are in
    very many cases incapable of successful
    mental effort, and much of our national
    expenditure for education is in consequence an
    absolute waste.''[font=cgtimes]15
    ...
    [font=cgtimes]
    in a new york city study of 50
    malnourished children aged 2 to 9, it was
    found after improving their nutritional level
    over a one to three-and-one-half year period,
    that their iq's rose by an average of 18
    points. no such change occurred in a wellnourished
    control group.[font=cgtimes]52

    [font=cgtimes]
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Mar 13, '07
  5. by   Simplepleasures
    HM2Viking, I have come to the SAD conclusion, that some "people" just dont give a damn.
  6. by   Shamira Aizza
    The conclusion that some people don't give a damn is as flawed as the preferred widespread implementation of socialism suggested by folks who apparently ignore the consequences of such programs.

    1. It's not everyone's fault that some people are poor.

    2. It's not everyone's responsibility to pay for the consequences of the decisions of poor people (i.e. the results of their procreation).

    3. It is impossible to have a population with a vacuum where there isn't five people out of 100 living as the poorest five percent of the population.

    4. People who are incapable of determining that they are too poor to have more children are incapable of improving the mental acuity of their children with food stamps.
  7. by   Simplepleasures
    [quote=shamira aizza;2109492]the conclusion that some people don't give a damn is as flawed as the preferred widespread implementation of socialism suggested by folks who apparently ignore the consequences of such programs.

    1. it's not everyone's fault that some people are poor.you are right.

    2. it's not everyone's responsibility to pay for the consequences of the decisions of poor people (i.e. the results of their procreation).again, you are right.

    3. it is impossible to have a population with a vacuum where there isn't five people out of 100 living as the poorest five percent of the population. you may be right.

    4. people who are incapable of determining that they are too poor to have more children are incapable of improving the mental acuity of their children with food stamps.children should not have to pay for the sins of their father.[/quote] does our society have a chance? i am almost to the point of saying, no.
  8. by   rngreenhorn
    That's a start. Now, if they could work on repealing the prescription drug benefit. And figuring out how in the heck we are going to fund the social security and medicare gap. And getting rid of earmarks, and stop spending our money like it is monopoly money. Then president Bush and our "conservative" leaders would be heading in the direction that some of us voted for.
  9. by   Simplepleasures
    I have a theory, Bush is really a closet democrat, fooled all the repubs into voting for him, then did what he wanted to do all along.Yeah all those old folks dont deserve to get their meds, who cares about them anyway, they just waste the air they breath.
  10. by   rngreenhorn
    Why not work on making drugs cheaper? Rather than expecting every one else to pay for them? What is wrong with expecting the citizens of this country to take responsibility for themselves?
  11. by   Shamira Aizza
    [quote=ingelein;2109539]
    Quote from shamira aizza
    the conclusion that some people don't give a damn is as flawed as the preferred widespread implementation of socialism suggested by folks who apparently ignore the consequences of such programs.

    1. it's not everyone's fault that some people are poor.you are right.

    2. it's not everyone's responsibility to pay for the consequences of the decisions of poor people (i.e. the results of their procreation).again, you are right.

    3. it is impossible to have a population with a vacuum where there isn't five people out of 100 living as the poorest five percent of the population. you may be right.

    4. people who are incapable of determining that they are too poor to have more children are incapable of improving the mental acuity of their children with food stamps.children should not have to pay for the sins of their father.[/quote] does our society have a chance? i am almost to the point of saying, no.
    regarding number 3...it's impossible for me to be wrong on that issue; math is not an opinion.

    regarding number 4, can you explain why you or i should have to pay for the sins of the father instead of his own children? if i'm end up paying the way or paying for his sins, then can you explain why i should be excluded from imposing my will on his decisions? what you are saying is that he should not have to suffer from his own bad decisions, and i should not expect to benefit from my own good decisions...which in no way inconvenienced anyone else.
  12. by   HM2VikingRN
    All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.......

    Children are the future of our society.........

    All I know is that it is a heck of a lot cheaper to provide preschool nutrition and education programs to children than it is to provide prison and mental health beds to them as Adults. Investements in early childhood yield an average rate of return of 16% to society. See Art Rolnick's work at the Minneapolis Federal Resrve Bank if you don't believe me.
  13. by   Shamira Aizza
    Quote from HM2Viking
    All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.......

    Children are the future of our society.........

    All I know is that it is a heck of a lot cheaper to provide preschool nutrition and education programs to children than it is to provide prison and mental health beds to them as Adults. Investements in early childhood yield an average rate of return of 16% to society. See Art Rolnick's work at the Minneapolis Federal Resrve Bank if you don't believe me.
    Since when did food stamps provide education programs?

    So poor people are not good?

    It matters not what Art Rolnick's work suggests; it is not the job or privilege of the gov't to dictate the upbringing of the children of it's nation. And I doubt that Art has shown that food stamps reduce mental illness. Do you think there are more children with mental illnesses involving overeating, or due to malnutrition because of an inadequate food stamp program?

    Since we now look at children as investments, I understand the tendencies toward abortion a little more. And the gov't should not be investing in children based on a future rate of return; the parents should be investing in their children, and if they can't afford them, they shouldn't be having them. And if we aren't allowed to tell them if they can or cannot have children, then no-one else should be allowed to tell me that I have to help pay for them.

    This is common sense. Since I've been reproductively and occupationally responsible, I plan to "invest" in my own children. I am not wealthy, so I ask that you not interfere in my own 'investment.'
  14. by   noggin_wise
    Perhaps the food stamps are being cut because they aren't needed as much since welfare reform is such a phenomenal success. Last I heard local communities were advertising in newspapers for the food stamp programs due to the lack of participants. I look at it as a good sign rather than a negative one on the current administration, but I don't always see fault with everything this administration as a few on here do.

close