On 6/2/2013 9:23 AM, wrote:
On Jun 1, 11:07 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article
,





(Jason) wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 5:22 PM, wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand
in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and abuse. Is
that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and difficult
to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing so, but
as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people will get
away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than allow a
far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law enforcement,
the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?

The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means you're
going to get fat.

--

I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Yes, it is.

Too bad, it happens ONLY in the minds of the useful idiots on the left, who
have no clue about nutrition and good eating habits.

It's a major issue in America. Pizza stores, MacDonalds and Burger King
are making millions selling mostly un-nutrition foods. My 350 pound
neighbor loves going to Costco and getting processed food such as a
processed meal that contains meatloaf and mashed potatoes. I looked at the
bottom of the container and it had dozens of long words that meant
"chemical preservatives". She offered to serve me a portion and I stated,
"No thanks".

The problem for the poor is having no access to anything else beyond
convenience stores and fast food.

Food deserts are a vitally important issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

http://www.marketmakeovers.org/why/food-desert

http://www.fooddesert.net/

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-product...-atlas/about-t
he-atlas.aspx#.Uaq2xRxlFoU

That should be enough to educate the educable.



Yet another lib fiction. From your own dumb reference:

"Physical access to shops can be difficult if the shops are distant,
the shopper is elderly or infirm, the area has many hills, public
transport links are poor, or if the consumer has no car. Healthy
options are unavailable. Carrying fresh food from grocers is also a
challenge for individuals who must take transit or walk long
distances.
Financial access is difficult if the consumer lacks the money to buy
healthy foods (generally more expensive, calorie for calorie, than
less nutritious, sugary, and fatty 'junk foods') or if the shopper
cannot afford the bus fare to remote shops selling fresh foods. This
limits individuals to cheaper local fast food outlets. Other forms of
financial access barriers come in the forms of inability to afford
storage space for food, or, for the very poor, homelessness, or living
in temporary accommodations that do not offer good cooking facilities.
The consumer's mental attitude or knowledge about nutrition and food
preparation can be major barriers limiting access to fresh produce and
other healthy food choices. Consumers may lack cooking knowledge or
have the idea that eating a healthy diet is not important."


So, on the one hand we're supposed to believe that these "deserts" are
a major problem unique to poor people. But then the definition
includes:

" the area has many hills"

What, those on food stamps can't get up a hill?


"if the consumer has no car."

take the bus. Plus we all know most folks on welfare and food stamps
have $500 hoopie cars.

"Carrying fresh food from grocers is also a challenge for individuals
who must take transit or walk long distances."

Oh, I feel so bad for them. Welfare and food stamps and they have to
carry the groceries!

"Financial access is difficult if the consumer lacks the money to buy
healthy foods (generally more expensive, calorie for calorie, than
less nutritious, sugary, and fatty 'junk foods') or if the shopper
cannot afford the bus fare to remote shops selling fresh foods. This
limits individuals to cheaper local fast food outlets."

They don't lack the money, for God's sake we're giving it to them.
Not only that, but with a few states that are exceptions, you can't
use
food stamps at fast food outlets. And it's a lie that the fast food
alternative
is cheaper than buying better food at a supermarket.


But this is how you libs operate. Make a crisis out of something made
up. Then the next step is another $50bil govt program that will
allegedly solve
it.....


We used to have little neighborhood grocery stores and produce stands
all over the place but they vanished when people quit walking to the
neighborhood market and drove to the big mega stores. There were some
wonderful small stores hanging on in some of the decaying hoods where
the high dollar earners moved away to the outer suburbs. The problem
was the stores kept getting robbed and the people of the hood wouldn't
tell the police anything so the wonderful small store owners packed it
in and left for safer grounds. The same thing happened to bank branches
which closed after being robbed and getting no support from the folks
who lived in the area. Of course the P.L.L.C.F. along with Al Sharpton
and Jessie Jackson start howling that the merchants and banks are "Red
Lining" the hoods because they're racist and haters when the truth is
the simple fact that they keep getting robbed and or don't want to get
robbed if they open a store or bank branch. There was one small store
that stayed open downtown next to the central housing project when it
was bought by some Iranians, the store was secured like it was in
Beirut, Lebanon. The place had bars and expanded metal over all windows
and doors along with concrete filled steel posts to prevent vehicles
from smashing in the front door. The boys in the hood knew the Iranians
didn't play, they had AK's and would shoot them if they looked at them
the wrong way. Odd, how that store was never robbed. ^_^

TDD