On 6/4/2013 8:20 AM, wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:27 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/3/2013 5:44 PM, wrote:





On Jun 3, 12:05 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/3/2013 8:28 AM, wrote:

On Jun 2, 10:04 pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Tom McDonald" wrote in message

...

On 6/2/2013 6:32 PM, Alex W. wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:45:15 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
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!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

And do you know WHY they exist ?

By the way, ALL rural areas are effectively "food deserts"
Because the closest food shops are not blocks but miles away.
WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in rural areas
?
Why is that ?

I suggest you look up the definition of "food desert".
Hint: it is not defined as access to food shops in general.

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

You moron
Why don't you try reading for comprehension instead of a excuse to
demonstrate your lack of educartion

Castigating a lack of education by referring to my
"educartion"?
Cute...

As I wrote, WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in
rural
areas ?
Why is that ?

Even though the distances in rural areas can be measured in miles
instead of
blocks.

Had you read the article, you would know that the definition
of a food desert is not primarily a matter of distance but
availability. And even in America where one may have to
drive some miles to the nearest town, I would be very
surprised indeed to find any rural area without a farmers'
market or access to fresh fruit and vegetables.

People in rural areas have figured out how to get places. Most of us have,
or have access to, vehicles. Those who don't have arrangements with
friends or family to get into town for necessities.

Those that don't have any access at all to town pretty much don't exist.

And yet you idiots claim there are "food deserts" in urban areas where
things are more compact, public transit exists, and people also have friends
and neighbors to help them get around.
Anyone see the disconnect ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only those that have eyes and can think. The KoolAid drinkers, not
so much. For them, excuses like "hills" and preferring cheese poofs
to broccoli are enough to qualify as "food deserts"......

Nope. You might look stuff up instead of making a fool of yourself.

Nope to exactly what? Can't you even be clear? Are you denying
that hills and preferring cheese poos to broccoli are listed as part
of the "food desert" problem by you libs?

I thought you'd be able to work it out for yourself. I was clearly wrong.

Try this: "Nope. excuses like hills and preferring cheese poofs to
broccoli are *NOT* enough to qualify as food deserts".

Got it?

But that'd get in the way of your rants, so I can see your problem with
doing that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can see you have a problem with being long on emotion, short on
clarity and fact.

Right back atcha, rightie.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Do try to pay attention. One of your lib pals here, believe it was
JD,
provided a link to Wikipedia that defines "food deserts". She
provided
it, not me. Not some conservative. Here it is:

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


A food desert is a district with little or no access to large grocery
stores that offer fresh and affordable foods needed to maintain a
healthy diet.[1] Instead of such stores, these districts often contain
many fast food restaurants and convenience stores.

"Access", in this context, may be interpreted in three ways:

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."
"


There you have it. Hills are specifically mentioned as a cause of
"food deserts"
And the last part, about a consumer's mental attitude covers the part
about
preferring cheesy poofs over broccoli.

And my comment stands: they are not sufficient in themselves to make a
food desert.

Do try to keep up.