The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

It is lack of fresh foods available because the neighborhoods suck and their desire for quick food that isnt good for them. They can plan to buy a bag of chips but not an apple? They can plan to but oil to fry things but not rice or something else more healthy?

 

Well, you hit on lack of access right away but don't seem to think it's a legitimate reason for the problem. Access to affordable-yet-healthy foods is the biggest problem. But that piece I linked goes over your objections pretty thoroughly, including lacking time to actually prepare meals when you're a single mom working two jobs and raising a couple of kids.

 

There's another side of the story, of course, that addresses realities Heritage and its followers choose to ignore. Adam Drewnowski, professor of epidemiology and director of the University of Washington's Center for Obesity Research, believes diet is determined by economic and social factors far more than by personal choice. "Healthier diets are more expensive," he says flatly. It's easy to point to specific exceptions like doughnuts vs. beans or Coke vs. milk (well, not always; my local Safeway charges 40 cents more for a half-gallon of milk than for a two-liter bottle of Coke). But research generally has shown that "energy-dense foods," which often are high in refined grains and added sugar and fat, "provide dietary energy at a far lower cost than do lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables, and fruit," as Drewnowski wrote in a 2004 article for Nutrition Today. Processed foods also dominate store shelves in poor neighborhoods, are quick to prepare, and simply taste better to some people than some nutritious foods available on the cheap—think cabbage, condensed milk, and canned fish.

 

Drewnowski calls Rector's arguments "rubbish, written from a position of class privilege—let them eat broccoli, indeed." He cites the suggestion that the poor should purchase cheap, nutritious foods rather than processed stuff. "When you suggest that people buy rice, pasta, and beans," he says, "you presuppose that they have resources for capital investment for future meals"—since these healthy staples come in large bags—"a kitchen, pots, pans, utensils, gas, electricity, a refrigerator, a home with rent paid, the time to cook. Those healthy rice and beans can take hours; another class bias is that poor people's time is worthless. So this is all about resources that middle-class people take so much for granted that they do not give them another thought. Not everybody has them."

 

On the other hand, he says, "buying a doughnut for dinner does not involve any of those middle-class resources. You pay 55 cents for this meal only and there you are. Yes, rice would be cheaper if only people had the time and were not working two jobs on minimum wage."

 

Anyway this was just a throw-in when I was googling around about the Heritage report. This same guy seems to produce the same bad papers (poor people aren't really poor because they own some cheap appliances and eat food that makes them obese) year after year.

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, you hit on lack of access right away but don't seem to think it's a legitimate reason for the problem. Access to affordable-yet-healthy foods is the biggest problem. But that piece I linked goes over your objections pretty thoroughly, including lacking time to actually prepare meals when you're a single mom working two jobs and raising a couple of kids.

 

 

 

Anyway this was just a throw-in when I was googling around about the Heritage report. This same guy seems to produce the same bad papers (poor people aren't really poor because they own some cheap appliances and eat food that makes them obese) year after year.

 

I think that if someone has luxury goods like cell phones and xboxs and multiple tv's they're not making the right decisions to get themselves out of being poor.

[StrangeSox]

I think that if someone has luxury goods like cell phones and xboxs and multiple tv's they're not making the right decisions to get themselves out of being poor.

 

TV's and Xboxs and cell phones are really cheap. College isn't.

 

"Possession of cheap appliances" doesn't actually address any of the real problems of poverty and the barriers to getting out of it.

[Jenksismyhero]

TV's and Xboxs and cell phones are really cheap. College isn't.

 

"Possession of cheap appliances" doesn't actually address any of the real problems of poverty and the barriers to getting out of it.

 

Ah yes, back to the what's "cheap" argument. I forgot that TV's, video game consoles, cell phones - thousands of dollars - are cheap and necessary to function in society.

[BigSqwert]

Ah yes, back to the what's "cheap" argument. I forgot that TV's, video game consoles, cell phones - thousands of dollars - are cheap and necessary to function in society.

In the grand scheme of things they are cheap. If you have zero chance of going to college and having a successful life then what's the harm in a $200 video game console to make your difficult life a tiny bit more bearable?

Edited July 19, 2011 by BigSqwert

[StrangeSox]

Ah yes, back to the what's "cheap" argument. I forgot that TV's, video game consoles, cell phones - thousands of dollars - are cheap and necessary to function in society.

 

The Heritage Foundation hopes that people will assume "TV" means "brand-new LED 50" 3D", but there's no reason it can't mean "$30 TV picked up at a garage sale"

 

But continue to ignore the valid and detailed criticisms of Heritage's garbage arguments for sustaining or increasing class privilege.

[Jenksismyhero]

In the grand scheme of things they are. If you have zero chance of going to college and having a successful life then what's the harm in a $200 video game console to make your difficult life a tiny bit more bearable?

 

How does anyone in this country have "zero chance" of going to college of have a "successful" life? GMAB. That's life choices that get in the way. Maybe for an incredibly small % of people it's impossible (doubt it) but not for the vast majority of the "poor."

[StrangeSox]

In the grand scheme of things they are. If you have zero chance of going to college and having a successful life then what's the harm in a $200 video game console to make your difficult life a tiny bit more bearable?

 

Jenks believes people are poor because they deserve to be poor--if they would only work harder or make the right decisions ie not use drugs or have kids at a young age, then American Meritocracy would lift them all from poverty.

 

Nevermind that the single parent working three jobs at minimum wage just to get by invariably busts their ass more than any of us do, as evidenced by our frequent daytime SoxTalk posting. She's just making dumb decisions like owning TV's and refrigerators and ceiling fans and basking in the luxury of having both an oven and a stove!

 

 

eta: lol, perfect timing.

Edited July 19, 2011 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

Jenks believes people are poor because they deserve to be poor--if they would only work harder or make the right decisions ie not use drugs or have kids at a young age, then American Meritocracy would lift them all from poverty.

 

Nevermind that the single parent working three jobs at minimum wage just to get by invariably busts their ass more than any of us do, as evidenced by our frequent daytime SoxTalk posting. She's just making dumb decisions like owning TV's and refrigerators and ceiling fans and basking in the luxury of having both an oven and a stove!

 

 

eta: lol, perfect timing.

[Jenksismyhero]

The Heritage Foundation hopes that people will assume "TV" means "brand-new LED 50" 3D", but there's no reason it can't mean "$30 TV picked up at a garage sale"

 

But continue to ignore the valid and detailed criticisms of Heritage's garbage arguments for sustaining or increasing class privilege.

 

Please. I'm not assuming that they're buying the latest $3000 tv, but let's not pretend they're getting hand me down electronics from 20 years ago either.

[StrangeSox]

How does anyone in this country have "zero chance" of going to college of have a "successful" life? GMAB. That's life choices that get in the way. Maybe for an incredibly small % of people it's impossible (doubt it) but not for the vast majority of the "poor."

 

Born into poverty, have to go to work as early as possible to support your family and never have time for school. But that's not a realistic scenario!

[BigSqwert]

Please. I'm not assuming that they're buying the latest $3000 tv, but let's not pretend they're getting hand me down electronics from 20 years ago either.

 

I'd love to see your thorough research on this matter. How many homes have you personally inspected?

[StrangeSox]

 

I'd love to see your thorough research on this matter. How many homes have you personally inspected?

 

Anecdotes and personal incredulity are all you need!

[Jenksismyhero]

Anecdotes and personal incredulity are all you need!

 

I've been in Cabrini Green a few times and have seen this stuff. I know people that are landlords in poor areas of the city and in Gary, Indiana. Is that something to compare too nationally? Probably not, but it's enough that I don't buy into the bulls*** you guys do that unless you make 50k, have access to cable, internet, a smartphone and can afford college paying cash that you're "poor" and need government to help you through life.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Born into poverty, have to go to work as early as possible to support your family and never have time for school. But that's not a realistic scenario!

 

It's called night school. I worked a full time job (paying s***) and got myself through law school by going to class at night. Oh, but i'm white and had a father in my life so I hit the life lottery and my situation doesn't compare!

 

GMAFB.

[StrangeSox]

I've been in Cabrini Green a few times and have seen this stuff. I know people that are landlords in poor areas of the city and in Gary, Indiana. Is that something to compare too nationally? Probably not, but it's enough that I don't buy into the bulls*** you guys do that unless you make 50k, have access to cable, internet, a smartphone and can afford college paying cash that you're "poor" and need government to help you through life.

 

The Census poverty level for a family of four is $22k. That's what Heritage is claiming is not really poor because they own cheap consumer electronics.

[StrangeSox]

It's called night school. I worked a full time job (paying s***) and got myself through law school by going to class at night. Oh, but i'm white and had a father in my life so I hit the life lottery and my situation doesn't compare!

 

GMAFB.

 

Were you entirely responsible for all of your own living expenses and possibly those of your family as well? Did you have children or younger siblings to raise at the same time? Did you grow up with access to better schools and a better understanding of how to get into college, even if you need government assistance in the form of student loans?

 

Are you really denying the existence of class privileges?

Edited July 19, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Were you entirely responsible for all of your own living expenses and possibly those of your family as well? Did you have children or younger siblings to raise at the same time? Did you grow up with access to better schools and a better understanding of how to get into college, even if you need government assistance in the form of student loans?

 

Are you really denying the existence of class privileges?

 

Or admitting the failure of our social spending?

[StrangeSox]

Another criticism of Rector saying the exact same garbage 12 years ago.

 

Rector makes much of the fact that many poor people own cars. "Seventy percent of 'poor' households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars." But Rector does not stop to consider that many of these households might need cars to get to their jobs. In fact, the 69.7 percent of poor households that Rector reports as having one or more cars in 1995 roughly mirrors the 61.4 percent of poor households with one or more workers in that year.

 

Rector has claimed that "poor Americans live in larger houses or apartments" than "the general population in Western Europe." Presumably as evidence of this assertion, he included in this year's report a chart titled "International Comparison of Living Space." However, what the chart actually compares is the average floor space per person in certain European cities, such as Paris and Athens, with the average floor space in all poor U.S. households--22 percent of whom live in rural areas and 33 percent of whom live in suburbs. (Even with such an egregious bias, his numbers are underwhelming: The mostly rural and suburban homes of the U.S. poor are only about one-fourth larger than the average home in notoriously crowded Paris.)

 

The intent of Rector's dubious number-crunching was to make his point that "there is a huge gap between the 'poor' as defined by the Census Bureau and what most ordinary Americans consider to be poverty." He was more right than he knew. That same year, the National Opinion Research Center conducted a poll of "ordinary Americans" asking the question: "What amount of weekly income would you use as a poverty line for a family of four (husband, wife and two children) in this community?" The official poverty line for such a family that year was $14,654 a year, or $282 weekly. Sixty-four percent of respondents suggested a figure greater than $282.

 

The following year, the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes conducted a poll in which respondents were told the current poverty line and asked whether they thought the line should be "set higher, set lower, or kept about the same." Fifty-eight percent said the poverty line should be higher and 32 percent said it should be kept about the same. Only 7 percent said it should be lower. The respondents who thought the poverty line should be changed suggested an average level of $19,400--more than $4,600 higher than the actual level that year. (Given the percentage of "non-poor" people who have trouble buying enough food, this seems like a more realistic standard.)

[Jenksismyhero]

The Census poverty level for a family of four is $22k. That's what Heritage is claiming is not really poor because they own cheap consumer electronics.

 

22k of "cash income" right? So, really we're talking about the expenses of 2 people (assuming two parents, one if only one adult in the family) since the kids are paid for with government checks. Oh and food is covered. And unemployment probably doesn't factor in. s***ty and not a fun life? Absolutely. What most people think of when they think "poor?" Probably not, which was in the beginning of his article - most people associate poor with dilapidated housing, no AC, no proper ways to cook meals, etc etc. That's not necessarily the case.

 

But bleed on brother. Help that single mother with 3 kids working 3 jobs. Life screwed her over. She couldn't have done ANYTHING in her life differently to change where she's at.

[StrangeSox]

Or admitting the failure of our social spending?

 

Cutting social spending is a sure-fire way to eliminate class privilege. Also tax breaks for ADM instead of food stamps.

[southsider2k5]

Cutting social spending is a sure-fire way to eliminate class privilege. Also tax breaks for ADM instead of food stamps.

 

We have spent trillions trying to end class privileged. I think Adam Dunn has a better batting average and less strike outs than our social programs.

[Jenksismyhero]

Were you entirely responsible for all of your own living expenses and possibly those of your family as well? Did you have children or younger siblings to raise at the same time? Did you grow up with access to better schools and a better understanding of how to get into college, even if you need government assistance in the form of student loans?

 

Are you really denying the existence of class privileges?

 

Yes on housing, no on children because I chose (ZOMG!) to bag that s*** so that I WOULDN'T be poor.

 

And I love that I can't use the excuse that poor people are poor because of some "poor" decisions in life, but you can throw out that every poor person is incredibly stupid and in total dependence on someone else to get them through the day?

 

If you can play xbox, you can figure out how to go to college and better your life. It's not rocket science.

[StrangeSox]

22k of "cash income" right? So, really we're talking about the expenses of 2 people (assuming two parents, one if only one adult in the family) since the kids are paid for with government checks. Oh and food is covered. And unemployment probably doesn't factor in. s***ty and not a fun life? Absolutely. What most people think of when they think "poor?" Probably not, which was in the beginning of his article - most people associate poor with dilapidated housing, no AC, no proper ways to cook meals, etc etc. That's not necessarily the case.

 

Hey, they're not as bad off as Somalians, therefore lets cut all social spending! They don't really need it!

 

But bleed on brother. Help that single mother with 3 kids working 3 jobs. Life screwed her over. She couldn't have done ANYTHING in her life differently to change where she's at.

 

This is just another form of blame the victim.

[StrangeSox]

We have spent trillions trying to end class privileged. I think Adam Dunn has a better batting average and less strike outs than our social programs.

 

The answer is to give in to or even accelerate inequalities?