FredHayek wrote: Unintended consequences? Wal-mart which offers inexpensive produce at their markets tried to enter a urban Denver neighborhood but were voted out because the yuppies in the area preferred to have expensive politically correct stores like Trader Vic's.
I don't really consider yuppies to be the "urban poor".
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Neither do I. But the yuppies in that neighborhood which has a good cross section of the working poor and unemployed screwed over their neighbors because of their hatred for Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart wants to end a food desert but the rich hipsters in the neighborhood would prefer to buy $3 dollar wine and high priced organic food.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I don't know enough of the demographics of that particular neighborhood to be able to say whether that is a factual statement or if there are other food choices available in the neighborhood other than a Walmart. If you are talking about the old University hospital area, there is a super target and Kings a few blocks away.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Quite a lot of the "poverty" is bogus. There are very many couples who live together, outside of marriage, with their children from previous relationships. Both parents work and file their income tax forms as single head of household with the IRS. Their combined incomes would definitely disqualify them to be classified in the poverty class, but separately they qualify. So they get food stamps, free school lunches, and all sorts of public assistance. How else do you suppose that 1 or 4 children are on food stamps? And the parents vote for their entitlements. I would suspect that many of them are members of these forums.
Do you ever spend any time working one on one with the disadvantaged? If you haven't, all you have to go on is anecdotal slander. I work regularly with parents who are in despair. They come in looking for healthy food and the bags of apples go faster than anything else. I doubt many of you even bother to drop a crumb off at your churches food banks.
You have your head in the sand. What I have described above is what is happening all over the U.S. We have destroyed marriage and replaced it with a welfare state supporting those who do not need help and in the process 42% of the children being born annually in our country are bastards.
chickaree wrote: Gods children, each and every one of them. It is not their fault if their parents made poor decisions.
You are right. The parents are the legal guardians of those children and make the decisions for them. The parents have chosen to fraud the government in the name of those children. And the children will continue this way of life whenever they enter into society as adults.
"It's for the children!" is a very worn out mantra.
And food stamps are just a supplement to whatever other income or food sources you may have.
I'm no expert on it, but if you Google "how to eat healthy on $100 a month" you'll find all kinds of results, many with menus and recipes.
So I'll ask, can you eat healthy on a $130 a month food stamp supply as the links claim?
And so far as eating healthy goes, I'll agree many don't eat healthy by choice and not just due to money. I know I can afford to buy veggies and fruits, not that I buy that much. I just like the meat, bread, potatos, and cheese better, so long as it's with a salad.
