Hunger problem solved.
We used to rent to some folks on welfare. Every Friday they'd throw a massive beer guzzler party with they're welfare money. Then they'd complain at the end of the month they had no rent money and were poor.
Is this a real cut in spending on welfare, or just a reduction
in the increase?
Mike
If it weren't for hunger we'd never know when it was time to eat.
WHOSE "official figures"?? There are so many half-truths and mis-statements in this article that it's just a joke. My eighth grade English composition teacher would have slapped me for writing something as weak in argument and citation as this article is. It looks like whoever sponsors National Hunger Awareness Day sent this article to the reporter who then just claimed it as his own.
One final point, then I'll turn off the rant flag. Have you ever looked at the nutritional labels on "junk food"? Much of it contains a fair portion of nutrients, including protein, fiber, and vitamins. Most "junk food" snack foods are more expensive than nutritious foods, which leads one to the realization that anyone buying "junk food" isn't doing so because of money, but because of poor choices. And poor choices (unmarried sex, dropping out of school, taking drugs / alcohol, committing crimes) are the number 1 cause of poverty.
The problem is the parent(s).
But then, we wouldn't want to call these incompotent nincompoops to task for their criminal neglect of their own children, would we? So it becomes "our" fault for not shoveling enough freebies their way!
Someone explain the logic to me.
The USDA Food Stamp program has increased the income standard every year so that more people can be eligible for Food Stamps thanks to the Farm Bill. With programs like WIC and Foodstamps I really have to look at the problem being more of a parental responsibility issue than that of one Republican from Texas.
The article says she is a "Pediatrician". She is not.
Dr. Black is a pediatric psychologist and completed her training at Emory University and the Neuropsychiatric Institute of UCLA. She has been the president of the Society of Pediatric Psychology and the Division of Children, Youth, and Family Services of the American Psychological Association.
They are malnourished BECAUSE OF "a greater prevalence of hunger"???? Anyone who takes a statement like this seriously doesn't speak English as a first language.
"In 2003, 11.2 percent of families in the United States experienced hunger, compared with 10.1 percent in 1999, according to most recent official figures, released on National Hunger Awareness Day held this year on Tuesday, June 7."
I have experienced hunger every year since June 1950. As a matter of fact, I'm experiencing it right now. Be right back .... I have to have a bowl of cereal.
What are the names of those three pediatricians?
"But infant-child protection centers do not exist in the United States, unlike it other countries, such as France, which makes children below the age of three or four years old somewhat invisible to authorities, laments Frank. "They don't come to my clinic until they are already quite underweight. "
Here is how we solve this problem. Every planned parenthood center gets shut down and reopened as an "infant child protection center" with the same funding. And we will let faith based cahrities also contribute and make it a 501c3 so anyone can contribute and write off the payment.
"Some pediatricians worry that cuts in welfare aid proposed in President George W. Bush's 2006 budget will only exacerbate the situation. By contrast Bush plans to keep tax cuts for more affluent sectors of the population, they note."
So which is it AFP? Are kids starving now before the evil tax cuts or are they going to starve even more after the tax cuts? So if they are starving now, would that not suggest the welfare programs they are now on are not working?
It's fun to catch the press contradicting themselves. Especially a few paragraphs into a story.
there are no supermarkets to buy even canned vegetables, but there ARE McDonalds?
"Some pediatricians worry that cuts in welfare aid proposed in President George W. Bush's 2006 budget will only exacerbate the situation. By contrast Bush plans to keep tax cuts for more affluent sectors of the population, they note.
"In the working class port city of Baltimore, Maryland, Dr. Maureen Black, a pediatrician, sees numbers of underweight babies in her clinic specialized in infant malnutrition located in one of the poorer areas."
Okay pinhead, oops 'Doctor', first of all welfare is still good for three years so 'mom' should be getting Gubmint Money and as such there shouldn't BE any underweight babies. Unless of course you're talking about kid number seven or eight and 'mom' refuses to get a job. Or......
Now as to there not being a supermarket or grocery store in the 'hood', well Doc - there used to be but the residents kept robbing it and then they burned the frigging thing down! And if you're so concerned why don't YOU open one up.
So Bite ME.
Some children in the United States occasionally look like the malnourished children we see in some parts of Africa, however, welfare programs targeting society's poorest ensures that problem is generally avoided, the pediatricians say.
Paradoxically, malnutrition is not always due to lack of food -- rather to the quality of the food being consumed.
***
The part that cracks me up about all this is -- for some time now, I've been hearing about how obese our children are. If they are obese, then any malnourishment is not due to lack of food -- but rather to the food the kids are eating.
Could it be, maybe, just maybe, the problem is not a lack of food, but rather, the kids are not being compelled to eat the right things and/or the parents are too damm lazy to provide their children with the food they are supposed to eat?
Nah...that wouldn't fit in with the liberal socialist agenda of the article and most of the participants described herein.
In other articles that I have seen, the author of this article, Stan Honda of AFP, frequently paints Republicans as being extremists and villains, and so it should come as no surprise that he also attempts to demonize President Bush in this one. Honda usually tries to mask his disdain for Republicans by trying to appear "balanced", although a careful reading of his works shows just the opposite. However the bias in the writing of this particular article comes across as uncharacteristically childish and heavy-handed.