The Challenge Of Feeding America’s Hungry
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-05/challenge-feeding-america%E2%80%99s-hungry
Americans are relying on what we used to call food stamps in unprecedented numbers. According to figures released in September, more than 46 million Americans, about one in seven, are getting government assistance for food, but it’s estimated that millions more struggle with hunger. The nation’s food banks, supported by private dollars and donations, are straining to fill the gap. Federal funding for food stamps is not on the line in the current tax and spending negotiations, but some believe new limits on government food assistance programs are needed. Please join us to discuss hunger in America and what we can do about it.
Guests
Stephen Moore
member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
Deborah Flateman
CEO, Maryland Food Bank.
Stacy Dean
vice president of food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Eric Olsen
senior vice president of government relations at Feeding America.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
SamJ wrote: "All of the fear mongering from the insane right wingers has hijacked and manipulated reality in this country"
That would be "left wingers".
SamJ- Moore could survive indefinitely on assistance. Cheating is his modus operendi. Come to think of it, his present lifestyle is best described as "corporate welfare."
This topic is very interesting to me, but hearing the comment that America's poor have a problem with obesity, threw me off a bit. I wonder if the man who made that remark understands what the root of the obesity epidemic is? Being poor comes with a new set of problems that many of us do not know or understand. Obesity stems from the lack of healthy food options, and the cost of those healthy choices. This cost is much more than the monetary cost, but also extends into the transportation to markets and the time it takes to prepare healthy foods.
One of the panelists addressed this. The work requirement is that in order to receive food stamps, an able-bodied person has to work 3 months within a 3 year period to keep receiving benefits. Obama issued a blanket waiver to all states by signing the stimulus law.
BUT...
The same waiver was issued by George W. Bush IN ALL BUT 4 STATES.
AND...
Those work requirements are delegated to individual states, and they are waived for states receiving extended unemployment benefits. So, the "states rights" that Republicans are always screeching about come into play here. Opt out of extended unemployment benefits, and your state can keep your work requirement for food stamps.
Why don't states do this? Because Republican policies of "do as I say, not as I do" don't work.
Could not agree more! Well put and thank you.
Mr. More said that it is a new thing that immigrants are pretty much handed food stamps when they are handed a green card. He said this is a great break with past behavior.
He was corrected. Immigrants (by law) can't recieve food stamps for 5 years after getting the green card.
Mr. More didn't apologize for lying, nor was he admonished by the hostess or anyone else. He just lies and moves on. He will tell the lie again and maybe not get called out. The lying will continue. We know this because this he is on this show with great regularity and he lies whenever his mouth opens.
Why is this type of person always on this show? Beyond foxnewstalkingpoints, what purpose does he serve?
THX1138_ I cry "fire" when I see fire and "fascist" when people act nihilist Randian and sadistic. Fire is visible in the mirror: maybe fascism isn't.
The comment I posted this morning somewhat reflects yours. It would be nice if the word "entitled" would go away, but I'm sure someone would come up with another that would quickly come to have the same connotation. The dog in the manger attitude that more and more people seem to be buying into these days is rather frightening.
You people are out of your minds, this whole welfare state thing is going to crash. Let's be honest, your goal is sweet revenge.
This comment about buying crab with food stamps creates a bad stereotype of food stamp users. What if the gentleman buying the crab with his stamps was doing this to celebrate a 20 year marriage anniverary? What if his wife had never had crab ever! Now, does this seem so bad? Please remind your guest that it is always difficult to second guess peoples motivations!
Craig
I do believe that the current guidelines for Federal food assistance give too much leeway to the "client" - - SNAPS should not ever be used for chips, candy, sodas, or crablegs ........ I have eaten alot of pasta and peanut butter in my life (lucky me, I still enjoy it!) and I don't think removing junk food from the program will hurt anyone except the junk food manufacturers.
Obviously, there are many people who are helped by foodstamps and who don't abuse the system. But infer that the poor would not be better without food stamps? It seems to me that if we could give directly to charity instead of the govt to redistrubute, fewer people would need foodstamps in the first place.
It's normally out of *compassion for the poor* that people oppose food stamps. At least that's so for me.
What reality do you live in? Clearly you listen to stations such a NPR since you are posting on this board. Obviously by your statements I would assume you also frequent the Fox "News" network and other right wing broadcasts. Have you ever compared what you hear?
As somebody who constantly watches and evaluates BOTH types of media (and is frequently saddened and disappointed by what people such as yourself might call "left wing, liberal, mainstream" media says/does not say or stand up for) There is simply no comparison to the false statements and fear mongering speech that comes out of the mouths of people like Mr. Moore (and all those he is closely affiliated with).
NPR continues to be one of the few networks who have real journalists who are intelligent, honest and CHECK THEIR FACTS. They regularly present both sides of stories and DO NOT ENGAGE IN LIES AND FEAR MONGERING! As always I am astounded by the ignorance and blatant denial by people such as yourself
It's been acknlwledged for a long, long time that eating also substitutes for other things such as comfort, purpose, hope. It seems to me that all these things are lacking for many people, especially those in extreme and chronic poverty. So it should come as no surprise that many people are becoming obese trying to satisfy a different type of hunger that cannot be satisfied with food, especially empty calorie food.
Without diminishing the struggle of impoverished families, I would like to point out that federal assistance is non-exhistant. I was starving in Falgstaff, AZ ( 20 lbs underweight) and no minimum wage jobs avaliable. I went to Social Services and they refused to give me anything because I had no children.
I just want to point out that discussions of hunger and poverty always center around adults with children? What about impoverished people who at least had enough foresight to not have children? There is absolutely nothing, food or healthcare.
SamJ wrote: "As always I am astounded by the ignorance and blatant denial by people such as yourself"
I could obviously say the same thing, one big difference though, I would be right.
Crab legs for everyone!
Gordie girl_ Many well-informed and resourceful persons recently out of work and home in my area have taught me much about shopping, cooking and nutrition. You can't assume that volunteers, social workers and administrators always know better about personal habits than their clients anymore. There is no middle class and no one is secure and stable in their lifestyle anymore. Don't think that the individual with the most money is always the higher authority. Jesus didn't lick up to merchants and office holders, nor should you. I have seen some dismal incompetents teaching work readiness and nutrition sessions, which were a waste of time and resources, besides being demeaning and insulting.
Jrasumus1 - I think you;ve bought into some interesting myths about poverty. Maybe if we could all get into our way-back machines and visit Dickensian London, we could get a first-hand glimpse into how well things worked when charity was mostly privately delivered. Frank McCourt's wonderful book "Angelas Ashes" shared with us some of his family's not-so-warm-and-fuzzy experiences with charity in Ireland in his youth. Ugly!
I wonder how many on the Wall Street Journal board or who work on Wall Street ever work at food pantries, homeless shelters, free clinics, etc. They may contribute financially to such private safety nets, but if they don't have more contact with low income people than being behind food stamp people in grocery check out lines (as per Stephen Moore's comment about someone using food stamps for crab legs) they aren't likely to be able to understand the plight of low-income persons.
I have been a Head Start teacher for seven years now, five years on the south side of Chicago, and two now in Detroit. Your experience seems highly different than mine, and I think perhaps you need to explore some of your own prejudices that lead you to make a statement like you did above.
I would argue that often times what appears as someone being "disinterested" has grown out of situations where they literally cannot imagine a life any better. Often times their families have been poor and disenfranchised for generations and they lack access to the knowledge, skills, and support they need to make real long term changes. Many of the poor struggle with undiagnosed mental illnesses and immense amounts of depression and hopelessness.
Have you yourself ever lived on food stamps and been extremely poor while living in a very low income area, be it rural or urban? What about an area plagued by violence and drug trafficking? Perhaps you are not doing your job in serving/helping these families and that is why you seem of encounter so many "disinterested" people. I would be disinterested in any of your help if I could immediately sense your prejudice towards me simply because I was a product of the place/family in which I was born.
mrsbraun@hotmail.com wrote:
As a middle class tax-paying citizen, I don't know all the details about requirements for Food Stamps. All I know is that I see people using food stamps in the check out line of the grocery store. I agree with the "crab leg" story. Just this weekend, I saw a woman hold up the cashier while paying with food stamps, so she could answer a call on her smart phone. Then I watched as she walked to a newer vehcile that I own. As I said, I am a middle class tax-paying citizen, and I don't have a smart phone or a new car because I balance my budget each month WITHOUT government assistance.
I also know indiviudals who are on food stamps, yet they also have cable televsion. Again, I don't have cable televison, so I can balance my budget.
What are we teaching our citizens if we continue to give free handouts?
Mary Fox
No comment ... just a Bravo and a bump because you are so spot-on.
SamJ, not sure if you were referring to me. But I just want to say that for me, it's not an issue of right or left wing. I don't watch FOX news or anything like that. I'm an academic and appreciate NPR for it's reasonable approach.
I care about logical arguments. A lot of people here seem to be inferring that because food stamps legitimately helps people that therefore people would be worse off on average if the program were eliminated. That *might* be true. I just don't know. The inference is certainly not deductively valid.
Daniel M wrote:
"Mr. Moore keeps arguing that food stamps do not constitute a stimulus to the economy. While I don't necessarily agree with the practice, I do believe food stamps are a stimulus because they function as income assistance; they free up the earned income a family would have spent on food to be used for other purchases in the economy. Without the stamps, they simply aren't making as many discretionary purchases on other things that drive the economy, because food must come first."
Great thoughts, Daniel! If a little is good, more must be better. Let's give everybody $10K a month to stimulate the economy! We'll be humming in NO time!
Clifford wrote:
"You cannot give to churches any more....They give the cash to the RNC these days,not to the poor and hungry."
Great excuse for you, huh Clifford? Unfortunately, if you look in your area there are probably DOZENS of food banks and other organizations that give money directly to the needy. That's where a significant portion of my charitable donations go. By the way, I give NOTHING to the church. They have enough money. If you wanted to find one, you could. Problem is, you don't really want to, do you? You'd rather have the "rich" pay taxes to create a program so you have money left to by your iPod and your Prius. Do I have that about right, Clifford?
Was not referring to you jrasmus1 but to THX who exists in some separate reality
Bongobelly_ It's a pretty bad feeling when Big Brother dictates your diet.
How would it feel to be told you could never have your favorite foods again?
Being poor is hard enough without the micromanagement you advocate.
In normal times people did not remain on SNAP very long but today SNAP nutrition is a necessary fact of life because real wages and job openings are way down due to Corporate dominance in legislation which took away most of labor's bargaining tools and normalized debt peonage.
ksahlstr wrote:
"From Kris:
Great show as always! What about setting up government-run locations where only food necessities are available in bulk for SNAP participants? (e.g. no Crab Legs!). Reminds me of State Run liquour stores in Utah. This could provide a means of distributing excess food to those who need it an focus those in need to purchase only needed food (sugare, flour, potatoes, meat, salt, etc) while also reducing the middle man and saving money."
Best practical idea on this mb today. Nice going.
jrasmus1
Don't blame SamJ. Blame the configuration of replies on this commentary.
jrasmus1 wrote:
"I supported a family of 3 on 20k--no problem (in graduate school). I declined food stamps because I didn't want to force taxpayers to pay for me to be able to choose to have a crab legs. That wouldn't seem fair. (If I *really* wanted crab legs, I would have worked another job, or sold my bike.)
Also, food stamps may harm the poor. In my case, I give 15% of my income *after* taxes to charity. But since I also have to pay the government for THEM to give to charity (such as food stamps), the 15% I give *directly* to the poor adds up to less. One could argue, therefore, that the poor would get MORE, in the long run, if we could give more of our money to charity (rather than to the govt).
Ultimately, I'm against food stamps BECAUSE I'm for the poor."
Bravo, jrasmus. A great post and you sound like an awesome person. Others, on the other hand, would prefer to have the poor under the thumb of dependancy. It's what keeps their guys in office. Hey, it worked again in the most recent election.