Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You were the one who mixed up posts, not me. I did not say anything about "control".
My point is that many people who are entrenched in poverty come from cultural backgrounds that place obstacles to getting out of it. They do not know how to shop for and prepare food, so even with SNAP they have bad diets. They have too many kids because they do not take advantage of contraception or choose not to use it. Good intentions and money have not been able to help those who are not motivated to do anything about their situation. The folks who are motivated get better jobs and get off welfare.
If "bad food-processing" exists, that does not mean anyone is forced to choose those products.
My comment was directed to post #424, and/or at least that is the comment I captured in quote, not yours I don't think, and why I wrote I was having trouble making sense of it, making sense of who wrote what...
More directly in response to this last comment of yours here, I know all the various reasons people struggle with poverty, whether more or less in their control, more or less within their ability to escape, but ultimately I always consider that living poor is no way to live. Most normal people simply do not want to live in poverty, and they will do what they can to escape poverty, if they think they can. That's a big "if" right there. Very big, because when people don't have hope and/or confidence their efforts will pay off, they won't make the effort...
Motivation is born from the hope of success, no matter what the goal, and all normal people want success, certainly not poverty. That's at least a fundamental truth that can help guide us toward understanding the problem(s) of poverty a little more objectively.
As for those who are not normal, and unfortunately many in poverty do suffer from mental illness, drug problems and the like, well those folks need even more help than society can offer most of the time. Lots of people on the streets who could take advantage of shelter and other assistance programs simply do not, because they have mental problems, made altogether clear if you happen to engage with them long enough to see this obvious fact as well.
What to do about the poor and mentally ill?
A question that lingers from long ago and well into the future. I think we have little choice but to live with these problems a good while longer, more and more humanely might be our most worthy and realistic goal...
Ignore BioWar at your peril.
Europe and Asia and America are all facing the consequences of dwindling birthrate versus invasion from cultures that have booming populations.
The future belongs to the descendants.
I am ignoring nothing, but I will admit I am a little fearful of what sort of war you are advocating against this enemy you are warning us about? Not sure what I can do about birthrates in different countries or within different ethnic groups or religions, but I do know the future does not bode well for older white guys bothered by the fact their majority status is changing forever. I'm one of those older white guys, and I am also descendant of immigrants (as I think most Americans are). I'm just not sure it bothers me so much that descendants of today and tomorrow are mostly a different color than descendants of yesterday.
If "bad food-processing" exists, that does not mean anyone is forced to choose those products.
Seriously? Does anyone KNOWINGLY buy or consume "bad food-processing" products? Ever had food poisoning? Did you do so knowingly?
Sometimes I just cannot believe the comments in these threads...
It has been an all too slow evolution of knowing what we should know about food processing, imposing health regulations to comply with better health/safety practices, disclose information that not only let's consumers know what they are consuming, but also forces food packagers to disclose whatever "dirty little secrets" they were much easier able to get away with before. All too slow thanks to those vested interests that didn't want to lose money having to "clean up their act."
If the general public could somehow know what dangers lurk in these regards, then yes of course we wouldn't need these disclosure and compliance requirements. Not sure the general public is all too comfortable with the "buyer beware" philosophy either, no more than we already must accept as it is, because it's just too easy for "cheaters" looking to maximize profits to cheat at the expense of consumer health and safety, without consumers knowing it!
Need we roll out all the countless examples along the past of consumer health and safety horror stories, going back to when it was first suggested that smoking might be harmful? Pesticides? MTBE? Trans fats? Lead based paint...?
Accidents do happen. Mostly its ignorant people who throw caution to the wind ,then cry when they get the news that baby is coming....
I wonder how many third childs are in America today that caught their "ignorant" parents by surprise when all the parents really wanted were two kids...
Seriously? Does anyone KNOWINGLY buy or consume "bad food-processing" products? Ever had food poisoning? Did you do so knowingly?
Sometimes I just cannot believe the comments in these threads...
It has been an all too slow evolution of knowing what we should know about food processing, imposing health regulations to comply with better health/safety practices, disclose information that not only let's consumers know what they are consuming, but also forces food packagers to disclose whatever "dirty little secrets" they were much easier able to get away with before. All too slow thanks to those vested interests that didn't want to lose money having to "clean up their act."
If the general public could somehow know what dangers lurk in these regards, then yes of course we wouldn't need these disclosure and compliance requirements. Not sure the general public is all too comfortable with the "buyer beware" philosophy either, no more than we already must accept as it is, because it's just too easy for "cheaters" looking to maximize profits to cheat at the expense of consumer health and safety, without consumers knowing it!
Need we roll out all the countless examples along the past of consumer health and safety horror stories, going back to when it was first suggested that smoking might be harmful? Pesticides? MTBE? Trans fats? Lead based paint...?
All food is processed one way or another. Freezing and canning enable us to have access to a variety of healthful foods. "Bad food-processing" was your term, not mine. I assumed you meant "processed" foods in general, not contaminated foods. Food-borne illnesses often happen because foods are not cooked or stored properly and do not necessarily mean the "processor" did something wrong.
As science finds out new things we change what we do.
When smoking was shown to be harmful, we started increasing efforts to get people either to not start smoking or to quit.
When we discovered kids were getting lead poisoning from eating paint chips, we took lead out of paint.
When we discovered that trans fats were harmful, we started to remove them from foods.
The agriculture industry would prefer to find alternatives to pesticides. Unfortunately, people are screaming about alternatives, including GMOs. We want plentiful, cheap fruits and veggies. Unfortunately, growing them without pesticides makes them more expensive. Stop pesticides altogether and some foods would be completely unaffordable. How does that help people on SNAP?
When MTBE contamination of water was discovered, steps were taken to mitigate it.
Your philosophy appears to have strong roots in the Nirvana fallacy: if it's not perfect, do away with it. Sorry, but the dangers may take a while to become apparent, even with government oversight.
None of this has anything to do with people on SNAP not knowing how or wanting to shop for and cook an adequate diet. It's not like no one is trying to help:
I wonder how many third childs are in America today that caught their "ignorant" parents by surprise when all the parents really wanted were two kids...
Surprise!
About half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned. It does not mean they are all unwanted, by any means.
Contraceptives do fail, even when used perfectly.
For those who absolutely never ever want another child, there are permanent options - they're even available to people on Medicaid.
I really think it is a cold thing to sum people up by their wallet. At 63, most people I met had a baby because they wanted, I am not from a small town, where life stays in the 1800's , but lived in major cities and overseas. People have children because it's a blessiing. It is the most precious thing you can have. So it is via medicaid is you beef? Yet Trump said used the bankruptcy laws available to him. And he is a millionaire. Go chase mis spent money in wars and other wasteful stuff. Not going to change people, And for the record, those improvements in food, fat, pestesides, clean water - normally is fueled by suits, deaths, and illness. Companies want to make money, not protect you.
I really think it is a cold thing to sum people up by their wallet. At 63, most people I met had a baby because they wanted, I am not from a small town, where life stays in the 1800's , but lived in major cities and overseas. People have children because it's a blessiing. It is the most precious thing you can have. So it is via medicaid is you beef? Yet Trump said used the bankruptcy laws available to him. And he is a millionaire. Go chase mis spent money in wars and other wasteful stuff. Not going to change people, And for the record, those improvements in food, fat, pestesides, clean water - normally is fueled by suits, deaths, and illness. Companies want to make money, not protect you.
Because it isn't just Medicaid it's also CHIP, WIC, food stamps, free school breakfast and lunch, welfare, section 8 housing, etc., etc.
Why should people who have no say in the matter be FORCED to pay for the care and support of other people's children?
This is a serious question. Why do poor people have so many kids, knowing that they can't even afford the first one? Why can't people be more responsible and hold off on having kids until they can provide better lives for them? Isn't that somewhat selfish on the parents' behalf?
Answer: Welfare.
About $800 a month for each kid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
