Eating healthy on 21 dollars per week...

[HM2VikingRN]

"no organic foods, no fresh vegetables, we were looking for the cheapest of everything," mcgovern said in an interview with the washington post at a washington supermarket. "we got spaghetti and hamburger meat that was high in fat—the fattiest meat on the shelf. i have high cholesterol and always try to get the leanest, but it's expensive. it's almost impossible to make healthy choices on a food stamp diet."

...

even for those people who are not seeing eroding benefits over time, the reality is “there are health consequences” to living on such a limited budget for more than a few days. people on food stamps are often forced to choose foods with higher fat, breads that are not whole grain and processed foods with unhealthy levels of sodium and sugar—a dangerous combination for people prone to diabetes, heart disease or other diet-related health problems. “living (on $21 a week) for a week is different from living on it for six months,” weill said.

...

that is why more people should demand to know why—in a year in which we are projected to give the wealthiest 1 percent of the nation some $56.5 billion in tax breaks, just to cite one example of the national priorities set by president bush—we can’t do better than an average of $21 a week to ensure that our fellow americans can have three decent meals a day.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/05/18/food_stamps_the_21_question.php

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

i was not clear enough in my post. what i was saying was that tax breaks for the upper 1% of the economy wage earners are neither justifiable (or moral) when 25% of our children are growing up in poverty. tax cuts in the form of amt reform are most certainly justifiable for the middle class.

the war on poverty was working. in the 70's poverty was at about 9% of the populace as a whole. since the early 80"s with cuts in the social safety net we have actually seen poverty creep up to about 12-13%.

the bush tax "cuts" are harmful to the economy. (to pay for the cuts we are borrowing billions from the chinese every year.) an inconvenient truth:

evidence fails to support administration claims

that its tax cuts are critical for the economy

the president's new budget claims that his tax cuts should be made permanent for the sake of both the economy and the budget. this claim is belied by the evidence.

the years following the president's tax cuts have seen unexceptional economic growth and unusually weak revenue growth. despite the large tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, government data show that the current economic expansion is weaker than the average post-world war ii economic recovery with respect to an array of critical measures, including economic growth, investment, employment, wages and salaries, and net worth. employment growth has been slower during the current recovery than during any previous expansion since the end of world war ii. moreover, median income for non-elderly households has fallen for five straight years. in fact, the economy's overall performance has been somewhat weaker than in the recovery of the 1990s when taxes were increased.

revenues, meanwhile, have declined slightly over the current business cycle (i.e., between the peak of the last business cycle in march 2001 and 2006), after adjusting for inflation and population growth. in previous business cycles, revenues (adjusted for inflation and population growth) have risen an average of 10 percent. the poor revenue performance in the current business cycle is a major reason why the nation's budgetary position worsened by a greater amount between 2000 and 2006 than in all but one other six-year period since world war ii, going from a surplus of 2.4 percent of gdp in 2000 to a deficit of 1.9 percent of gdp in 2006. (the largest six-year deterioration occurred between 1998 and 2004 and also reflected the impact of the tax cuts, as well as other factors.)

http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-07bud.htm

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-07tax-f1.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-07tax.htm

the cost of tax cuts for the highest-income 1 percent of households will exceed the entire 2006 budget of the department of homeland security. it similarly will exceed the entire 2006 budget of the department of veterans’ affairs. and it also will be greater than the combined budgets of the departments of housing and urban development, energy, and the environmental protection agency.

even if the tax cuts’ costs are eventually paid for through a more balanced package of spending reductions and progressive tax increases, data from the tax policy center show that, on average, the bottom four-fifths of households will lose more than they gain from the combination of tax cuts and the financing for them. that is, once the need to pay for the tax cuts is taken into account, the 2001 and 2003 “tax cuts” are best seen as net tax cuts for the top 20 percent of households, as a group, financed by net tax increases or benefit reductions for the remaining 80 percent of households, as a group. (http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.htm)

[Jolie, BSN]

hm2viking (quote from above post)

i was not clear enough in my post. what i was saying was that tax breaks for the upper 1% of the economy wage earners are neither justifiable (or moral) when 25% of our children are growing up in poverty. tax cuts in the form of amt reform are most certainly justifiable for the middle class.

actually, you were very clear. but there are posters who disagree with your position.

none of your charts or resources change the fact that the federal government does not "spend" money on tax cuts, or "pay for" them. the federal government simply collects money from taxpayers and re-allocates it. the money does not belong to the feds, or to the recipients of entitlement programs. it belongs to the people from whose paychecks it was confiscated, and those taxpayers have a right to see their money used in a responsible manner.

i have never met anyone who begrudged federal benefits to those who were truly unable to provide for themselves, such as the disabled, elderly, and those who were temporarily out of work and in need of assistance for a period of time while they sought out new employment and/or education. but the 25% of american children who you state are living in poverty are not likely to be the dependents of disabled or elderly adults, or people temporarily out of work. they are likely to be the children of able-bodied parents who choose not to work, absentee fathers who choose not to take responsibility for their children, or illegal immigrants who are willing to work for substandard wages. it is absurd to expect the american taxpayer (wealthy, middle class, or otherwise) to continue to pay for those who make poor decisions and fail to provide for their own families, or show no regard for american law.

as other posters have pointed out, food stamps were never intended to provide long-term, full funding for groceries. recipients were expected to use them temporarily to supplement their own resources to provide food for their families. that many have failed to use the program as intended does not obligate taxpayers to contribute even more money. it obligates the administrators of the program to enforce the rules!

i chuckle at your statement that the wealthy are not entitled to tax cuts, while the middle class are. why do you think that the federal government is entitled to a greater percentage of a wealthy person's money than a middle class person's? just who is wealthy? what makes up the middle class? class-envy is a tactic of politicians who convince the masses to support imposing taxes (or laws) on others, but not themselves, a tactic that enhanes the entitlement mentality, and costs us all more in the long run.

[MistiroseRN]

In my house fruit is a special treat, vegetables are from a can or frozen. If I go out and buy $25 worth of fruit my kids eat it all in two days and I'm lucky if I can get a single banana or apple!

I hear you. That is exactly where I am now. It's hard to make ends meet. I am hoping that changes when I am out of school.

[VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN]

hm2viking (quote from above post)

i was not clear enough in my post. what i was saying was that tax breaks for the upper 1% of the economy wage earners are neither justifiable (or moral) when 25% of our children are growing up in poverty. tax cuts in the form of amt reform are most certainly justifiable for the middle class.

actually, you were very clear. but there are posters who disagree with your position.

none of your charts or resources change the fact that the federal government does not "spend" money on tax cuts, or "pay for" them. the federal government simply collects money from taxpayers and re-allocates it. the money does not belong to the feds, or to the recipients of entitlement programs. it belongs to the people from whose paychecks it was confiscated, and those taxpayers have a right to see their money used in a responsible manner.

i have never met anyone who begrudged federal benefits to those who were truly unable to provide for themselves, such as the disabled, elderly, and those who were temporarily out of work and in need of assistance for a period of time while they sought out new employment and/or education. but the 25% of american children who you state are living in poverty are not likely to be the dependents of disabled or elderly adults, or people temporarily out of work. they are likely to be the children of able-bodied parents who choose not to work, absentee fathers who choose not to take responsibility for their children, or illegal immigrants who are willing to work for substandard wages. it is absurd to expect the american taxpayer (wealthy, middle class, or otherwise) to continue to pay for those who make poor decisions and fail to provide for their own families, or show no regard for american law.

as other posters have pointed out, food stamps were never intended to provide long-term, full funding for groceries. recipients were expected to use them temporarily to supplement their own resources to provide food for their families. that many have failed to use the program as intended does not obligate taxpayers to contribute even more money. it obligates the administrators of the program to enforce the rules!

i chuckle at your statement that the wealthy are not entitled to tax cuts, while the middle class are. why do you think that the federal government is entitled to a greater percentage of a wealthy person's money than a middle class person's? just who is wealthy? what makes up the middle class? class-envy is a tactic of politicians who convince the masses to support imposing taxes (or laws) on others, but not themselves, a tactic that enhanes the entitlement mentality, and costs us all more in the long run.

well said, jolie.

on the surface, 'giving' tax cuts to the upper 1% looks bad, yes. but it is, after all, their money, not the government's!

i personally would much rather see taxpayers' hard-earned money pumped back into the economy, where it helps to provide jobs, than have it confiscated to pay for a war millions of us believe is wrong, and aid programs for people who refuse to help themselves. but that's just me.:uhoh21:

[KIAN]

I agree with Jolie. And good point mjlrn, who earned the money. Yes, some have more advantages than others. Warren Buffet for example is giving away money yet what he has left continues to make more and more. It is still his money.

I would have a tough time on $21.00 a week for food, but I'd certainly take responsibility for why I had to live on 21.00 and not keep asking for more handouts.

[SuesquatchRN, BSN, RN]

A lot of people in this area are employed full time and still need food stamps and Medicaid. They are hardly people who "refuse to help themselves."

[pickledpepperRN]

Some go to a lot of trouble to pay $15.00 for $21.00 in food.

They spend their day off at the social services office with little children. Then they wait in line to pay for the card. It is worth it to have an extra $6.00 a week to help feed each kid.

[VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN]

A lot of people in this area are employed full time and still need food stamps and Medicaid. They are hardly people who "refuse to help themselves."

Exactly. And they are the ones who SHOULD get some help; nobody can support a family on eight or nine bucks an hour. I don't think very many people would argue that.

What sticks in the craw are the bottom-feeders who literally would rather sit at home, doing nothing, than take an honest if low-paying job........the ones who work the system and know every single angle there is to try to get more handouts. These are the ones who don't have enough to eat or a decent roof over their heads, but always seem to have cigarettes, booze, and lawyers. I have NO use for this sort, and that's because I've been in the system.........the abusers make it hard for everyone else.

[danissa, LPN, LVN]

In my house fruit is a special treat, vegetables are from a can or frozen. If I go out and buy $25 worth of fruit my kids eat it all in two days and I'm lucky if I can get a single banana or apple!

do you not have a market where you can buy fresh stuff? And, imho, the fresh stuff should be given to the kiddos! Worry about what goes into THEIR bodies and feeds their minds!

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

hm2viking (quote from above post)

i was not clear enough in my post. what i was saying was that tax breaks for the upper 1% of the economy wage earners are neither justifiable (or moral) when 25% of our children are growing up in poverty. tax cuts in the form of amt reform are most certainly justifiable for the middle class.

actually, you were very clear. but there are posters who disagree with your position.

none of your charts or resources change the fact that the federal government does not "spend" money on tax cuts, or "pay for" them. the federal government simply collects money from taxpayers and re-allocates it. the money does not belong to the feds, or to the recipients of entitlement programs. it belongs to the people from whose paychecks it was confiscated, and those taxpayers have a right to see their money used in a responsible manner.

comment:my data was showing how the tax cuts are not confiscated from taxpayers but are being paid for through borrowed money. every time a road is built income is reallocated willingly or unwillingly. as taxpayers we certainly should expect efficient and well performing government.

i have never met anyone who begrudged federal benefits to those who were truly unable to provide for themselves, such as the disabled, elderly, and those who were temporarily out of work and in need of assistance for a period of time while they sought out new employment and/or education. but the 25% of american children who you state are living in poverty are not likely to be the dependents of disabled or elderly adults, or people temporarily out of work. they are likely to be the children of able-bodied parents who choose not to work, absentee fathers who choose not to take responsibility for their children, or illegal immigrants who are willing to work for substandard wages. it is absurd to expect the american taxpayer (wealthy, middle class, or otherwise) to continue to pay for those who make poor decisions and fail to provide for their own families, or show no regard for american law.

comment:no but they are often dependendents of people who are trapped in substandard jobs. there is substantial data available to show that many of the poor are working full time and are still unable to rise above the poverty line. any child born in the us is a citizen.

as other posters have pointed out, food stamps were never intended to provide long-term, full funding for groceries. recipients were expected to use them temporarily to supplement their own resources to provide food for their families. that many have failed to use the program as intended does not obligate taxpayers to contribute even more money. it obligates the administrators of the program to enforce the rules!

comment: see my comment about working poor families. we have an economy that is simply failing to deliver the goods when it comes living to wages and benefits. if we want people to work there needs to be jobs that pay well enough to make it worthwhile to go to work. for welfare reform to work it will actually cost more money than the old system. (dave hage of the mpls star trib wrote a book that discussed this very issue at great length.)

i chuckle at your statement that the wealthy are not entitled to tax cuts, while the middle class are. why do you think that the federal government is entitled to a greater percentage of a wealthy person's money than a middle class person's? just who is wealthy? what makes up the middle class?

comment: here is an excerpt from an article that rather effectively answers your question.

i'm hardly alone in this view. even robber barons like andrew carnegie (eventually) acknowleded that all wealth originates in the community and ''not in the herculean work efforts of lone individuals and hence should be returned to whence it came.'' and, warren buffet, the second-richest man in america, concedes that ''if you stuck me down in the middle of bangladesh or peru you'll find out how much talent is going to produce in the wrong soil.''

herbert simon, a nobel prize winner in economics, acknowledges that this societal contribution accounts for at least 90 percent of what people earn in northwest europe and the united states. based on this social contribution to wealth, simon believes that moral grounds exist to warrant a flat income tax of 90 percent. in other words, as carnegie biographer steve fraser urges, if wealth originated as social capital as carnegie maintained, shouldn't that dictate a public, democratic role on its best use?

but don't the super-rich deserve their fortunes because of their hard work, pluck, and genius? i think not. for example, behind all the modern technology fortunes, one finds taxpayer-funded research and development. bill gates wasn't responsible for the crucial technical advances that produced the computer. his ''genius'' was to take advantage of work done at public initiative and expense.

...

chuck collins, economic expert and heir to the oscar mayer fortune, concludes, ''yet, where would the many wealthy entrepreneurs be today without taxpayer investment in the internet, transportation, public education, the legal system, the human genome and so on?'' to this, we must add several additional sources for the great fortunes. a partial list includes: piracy, colonial pillage, black african slaves, extermination of first nation peoples, child labor, chinese and irish immigrant labor (railroads) indentured servitude, eminent domain, massive (often concealed) taxpayer subsidies, worker massacres, inheritance laws, public land grabs, unfair trade practices, supporting foreign dictatorships to gain cheap labor and resources, tax policy, corporate welfare, and always, underpaid, overworked employees.

...

self-made wealth is a myth. in the words of economic analyst mike laphan, ''it takes a village to raise a billionaire. every taxpayer deserves some credit for the forbes 400 wealth.'' so, if all production is social, where is society's dividend?

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-left_col-a.5852503may17,0,4343922.story?coll=all-newsopinionanotherview-hed

along with the homestead act, sweetheart development deals, tax abatement and other forms of corporate welfare. it never ceases to amaze me how many people repeat talking points without really looking at the historical evidence. one other way to look at the tax debate is that we cut programs for the poor by 34 bn in round numbers and used that money to pay for 74 billion in tax cuts for the most advantaged in our society. any way that is dissected it is a wealth transfer from the poor to the super wealthy. my pointing out and questioning the morality of that decision is hardly class warfare but it is asking whether that is socially just.

[Jolie, BSN]

comment:my data was showing how the tax cuts are not confiscated from taxpayers but are being paid for through borrowed money. every time a road is built income is reallocated willingly or unwillingly. as taxpayers we certainly should expect efficient and well performing government. quote from hm2viking above

obviously, we have different perspectives on how society should "care for" those unable and/or unwilling to care for themselves. i'll simply agree to disagree on how best to address entitlement programs for the poor of our country.

but the poor understanding most americans have of basic economics is highlighted in your first comment (above). tax cuts are not confiscated from taxpayers. that much is true. taxes are. and reductions in tax rates are not "paid for" by borrowing money. if tax reductions result in decreased tax revenue (which rarely happens), then it is the responsibility of our elected officials to decrease spending accordingly to stay on budget, just like every responsible individual does with his/her own personal finances. reductions in spending do not require cutting critical social welfare programs. it is just where the politicians like to go to make the most "noise" about budget cuts. reductions in pork and unnecessary spending would more than make up for any revenue shortfalls, but no politician wants to cut the pet projects that make him/her look important to the constituents.

tax cuts almost always result in revenue increases because they promote an environment that encourages personal spending, strengthening the economy. it is out-of-control spending by both democrats and republicans that has created shortfalls in government budgets which threaten social welfare programs.