I doubt any farm subsidies are having much of an impact on potato chips, but let's just say they ARE. This suggestion by a liberal to raise the cost of food smacks of hypocrisy doesn't it?
We need to do more and more to protect the poor, pay more more more, but wait, affordable food? Gotta stop that!?

If the cost of food is being kept down using subsidies, then you are paying for the higher price already, just through your taxes.

tom

I doubt any farm subsidies are having much of an impact on potato chips, but let's just say they ARE. This suggestion by a liberal to raise the cost of food smacks of hypocrisy doesn't it?
We need to do more and more to protect the poor, pay more more more, but wait, affordable food? Gotta stop that!?

Some years ago two nutrition experts went grocery shopping. For a dollar, Adam Drewnow­ski and S. E. Specter could purchase 1,200 calories of potato chips or cookies or just 250 calories worth of carrots. It was merely one example of how an unhealthy diet is cheaper than a healthy one. This price difference did not spring into existence by force of any natural laws but largely because of antiquated agricultural policies. Public money is working at cross-purposes: backing an overabundance of unhealthful calories that are flooding our supermarkets and restaurants, while also battling obesity and the myriad illnesses that go with it. It is time to align our farm policies with our health policies.

In past years farm subsidies have been a third rail of American politics—never to be touched. But their price tag, both direct and indirect, has now brought them back into the debate and created an imperative for change. Conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and arthritis are strongly correlated with excess poundage and run up medical bills of nearly $150 billion every year. The government has poured billions of dollars into dietary campaigns, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s new MyPlate recommendation (half of daily food consumption should be fruits and vegetables) to programs aimed at providing more produce in schools and in military cafeterias.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... he-insulin


No hypocricy at all. The cheap food comes with a cost. First it is a waste of taxes. Second it distorts markets. Third it promotes eating unhealthy foods which then fourth: costs in terms of health care costs....
But corporate interests and the strange American political system protect the subsidies. (The Iowa primaries protect the corn subsidies...)

I am ok with only food staples being purchasable through the food stamp programme.

That would alleviate the cost issue and the health issue. Coupled with an ability to eliminate expenses of buying lobster and other extravagant items, this could be a great adjustment!

What do you think of that? No pre-packaged, full of unhealthy chemicals, nutritionally void foods.

I am all for it!

I agree with Bbauska, and Ricky is ignoring the facts. Overall food costs would increase, not JUST chips and soda. His position is still quite muddled to me, he wants the poor to eat ...he has stated the government should take care of the poor on many occasions. But now he supports higher food costs while ignoring the obvious that Bbauska has pointed out. But wait, not allowing the poor to eat what they like, to let them feel like second class citizens who can not enjoy unhealthy snacks the rest of us do, well that would simply discriminate and make them feel bad about themselves. The position just doesn't make any sense.

and more that doesn't make sense

Public money is working at cross-purposes: backing an overabundance of unhealthful calories that are flooding our supermarkets and restaurants, while also battling obesity and the myriad illnesses that go with it.

excuse me but people buy the unhealthy stuff because it tastes good not because of any sort of "public money". Again, if you want to blame subsidies, they go across the board, the govt does not subsidize snack foods, corn may be subsidized Corn is made into corn chips sure but corn is also fed to livestock, made into tacos and frozen/canned corn eaten as a vegetable, all sorts of things other than corn chips and corn syrup.

Tom, I can't tell if you are defending subsidies on corn or not...
Why should corn be subsidized?
Why should any agricultural product be subsidized?
There are specific cases and specifc reasons that might make sense, but you've raised none. Food, would not be cheaper if subsidies are eliminated. Only certain kinds of food, heavily dependent on fructose and transfats..Junk Food.


bausk, the whole notion that food stamps are a good way to alleviate or eradicate poverty is disproven by Rays' illustration of generations of the same families on food stamps. They do nothing for the poor but feed them. Now, that desn't eradicate poverty. All it does is keep the poorest from starving.
restrictions on how the stamps (or debit cards) can be used, is just fine tuning a program that has no return...

Countries that don't have food stamps programs, treat their poor more generously, and without the demeaning beauracracies and rules. As a result their poor are far more likely to work out of their situation that people who grow up tied to coupons...Social mobiliy (The evidence of a route out of poverty) requires free educational opportunities, freedom from health care insecurity on top of a roof and food.....
All food stamps do is the fourth thing. That you think restricting the use of food stamps to specific kinds of food ignores the fact that the cheapest food, is also the most unhealthy. Making a limited budget go a long ways, sometimes depends upon the filling choice....unhealthy choice.
Even college students eat Kraft Dinner.

Ricky:

Countries that don't have food stamps programs, treat their poor more generously, and without the demeaning beauracracies and rules. As a result their poor are far more likely to work out of their situation that people who grow up tied to coupons

I realize that the U.S. has declined on social mobility as of late, but I am under the impression that other western countries have extended families that have experienced generations of poverty based on both limited opportunity and cultures of dependency. That's certainly the case in the U.K. and parts of Europe.

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

Countries that don't have food stamps programs, treat their poor more generously, and without the demeaning beauracracies and rules. As a result their poor are far more likely to work out of their situation that people who grow up tied to coupons

I realize that the U.S. has declined on social mobility as of late, but I am under the impression that other western countries have extended families that have experienced generations of poverty based on both limited opportunity and cultures of dependency. That's certainly the case in the U.K. and parts of Europe.

And, may I say, with all due respect, public housing is a miserable failure. In most cases, the projects are dangerous slums. That does little but contribute willing bodies to the gang wars.

Further, the old adage, "Give a man a fish and you have fed him for a day; teach a man to fish and he will feed himself" is an adage because there is a lot of truth to it. What our current system fosters dependence on the Federal government, which actually undermines the motivation to move up.

There are numerous rules that make little or no sense. I recently was counseling a man who was receiving a decent amount of money from the government for not working. Even when he got a job paying more than $15 an hour, he was, essentially, taking a pay cut. It seems to me that it would make more sense to gradually reduce the payments rather than cut them off immediately. As in this case, the government was actually discouraging him from taking a job. There are innumerable situations that parallel this. The message seems to be: "Don't worry; we got your back." It ought to be: "We're here for you IF you need us; once you don't, get lost."

Building social housing in 'projects' was the problem, not the principle of social housing itself. I grew up in social housing, and it was by no means a slum.

When you pile it high, build it on the cheap, section it off from the rest of the populace, let industry decline, allow the areas to fester, etc, that's when you get the slums. Of course, often the projects were replacing even worse slums.

On your last point - yes, I agree that payments should taper off as people move up in income. You have to accept, however, that this does mean subsidising people in work (and it would be silly to charge them income taxes as well). Running that can be quite complicated - especially if income varies week to week, so overheads would increase. And we've been trying it for years (in a sense, it's what tax credits are).

Ray Jay wrote:I realize that the U.S. has declined on social mobility as of late, but I am under the impression that other western countries have extended families that have experienced generations of poverty based on both limited opportunity and cultures of dependency. That's certainly the case in the U.K. and parts of Europe.

We didn't have a serious problem until the 1980s. Mainly in areas where industry departed at about that time. That's the 'limited opportunity' part. That period also saw social welfare start to be cut by the Thatcher government.

It does seem that some government agency should be looking at the money a family is getting from various social programs and make adjustments to benefits accordingly. In another words, while each government program (state or federal) may not be that generous by itself taken together they might be overly generous. The best way to limit social programs is by providing enough jobs for people (clearly not true currently and probably a systemic problem that is not fixable given the world-wide excess of labor) and also try and make sure that jobs pay enough to keep people off of the rolls (in other words raise the minimum wage). I also think we should lengthen the years before immigrants become eligible for government problems. You should not be able to invite grandpa over to the US and then put them on low-income SSI after five years...http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/EN-05-11051.pdf

RJ - what kind of figures do you think we have in the UK for households where no-one works, or where no-one has never worked?

Would it surprise you to learn that the trends are down for both?

ray

I realize that the U.S. has declined on social mobility as of late, but I am under the impression that other western countries have extended families that have experienced generations of poverty based on both limited opportunity and cultures of dependency. That's certainly the case in the U.K. and parts of Europe

I think social mobility in the US hit its zenith in the 50's and 60's and has declined since.
However, the countries with exceptional social mobility are denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Germany and Finland.
Last I looked the UK was behind the US in terms of social mobility. So I wouldn't copy the UK practices...

In industry one looks at the common practices of companies that do well and adopts them as best practices in order to improve. Applied to social mobility, and i assume socail mobility its something that you'd like to have in the US, then examining what those nations do differently for their poor and working class makes sense.

The biggest differences are, I believe, in providing virtually free health care and free or cheap education (including secondary education). I believe you'll find that benefits for unemployment are more generous, as are minimum wages ... and that social assistance programs are less restrictive. The kind of arbitrary and self defeating restrictions on income levels and support that Fate points to .... are less likely to occur in programs in those countries...

If the American dream is the ability to rise out of poverty to a middle class or better life, then its the practices of nations where the effects of poverty do not include being cemented into poverty are the models...
There would of course be changes... A middle class American is a little better off materially than a Swede. But in return the Swedes have greater security for their families...
copied from a discussion site

As someone who is middle-class in the US (no emphasis on upper) things look different to me. Materialistically I have roughly the same as my Swedish peers, maybe I have a bit more- but that is slightly so (and most of them have big screen TV’s…I don't ), but less vacation, I can lose my job in ONE second with virtually no safety net, my kids college education depends mostly on MY wealth - not how good they are in school.

Americans have made the decision that people won't starve in their nation. And they won't die without medical care... So the basic values are similar to other western nations. Normally American industry is not loathe to borrow best practices from other industry. But when the greater efficiencies shown in reducing poverty are known , all of a sudden , the deflection begins.

danivon wrote:Building social housing in 'projects' was the problem, not the principle of social housing itself. I grew up in social housing, and it was by no means a slum.

When you pile it high, build it on the cheap, section it off from the rest of the populace, let industry decline, allow the areas to fester, etc, that's when you get the slums. Of course, often the projects were replacing even worse slums.

Mostly true, but the "Judge Dredd" model is the ideal of liberal urban planners. Get everyone into tenements so that energy costs are reduced and equality is increased. Private property is the enemy of equality. Never forget that. (NB: that's what many liberals believe, not what I believe).

On your last point - yes, I agree that payments should taper off as people move up in income. You have to accept, however, that this does mean subsidising people in work (and it would be silly to charge them income taxes as well). Running that can be quite complicated - especially if income varies week to week, so overheads would increase. And we've been trying it for years (in a sense, it's what tax credits are).

I have no problem with this. The issue is that our system is "all or nothing." You are either "on the dole" or "cut off." If you get a job, you lose money. So, many people would rather milk the system than work.

Freeman:

I also think we should lengthen the years before immigrants become eligible for government problems.

cute Freudian