Low Income Children Cut From Food Program

buddy

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 21, 2000
10,897
85
0
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Low-income children cut from food program

Thursday, June 22, 2006
By Joe Fahy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Thousands of low-income Pennsylvania families with young children will receive less help this summer from a government program that allows them to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables from farmers' markets.

State officials said cuts in federal funding have prompted them to eliminate children younger than 4 from participating in the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.

At least 40,000 children eligible for the program are affected, said Barry Shutt, director of food distribution for the state Department of Agriculture.

The change means families who qualify for a program known as WIC, which provides assistance to low-income pregnant women, new mothers and their children, will be able to purchase less food through the farmers' market program.

In Pennsylvania, that program allows each woman enrolled in WIC to purchase $20 worth of certain fresh fruits and vegetables from farmers' markets during the spring and summer months. In the past, the state also provided $20 for each child up to age 5.

But 2- and 3-year-olds will not be eligible this year because of funding cuts, state officials said. They said 2-year-olds also were ineligible last year, though they later could qualify after more federal funding became available.

Jean Daniel, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said she did not know if additional federal funds would be available this year.

Pennsylvania expected to receive $1.62 million in federal funds for the farmers' market program this year, down from $2.31 million last year.

Without more funds, the state had to make cuts in the program, Mr. Shutt said. He noted that it will continue to serve mothers who receive WIC and their 4-year-old children. The program also serves seniors.

Berry Friesen, executive director of the Pennsylvania Hunger Action Center, questioned the cuts, noting that officials are concerned about improving nutrition for young people and also have sought to promote Pennsylvania agriculture.

For those reasons, paring back the farmers' market program doesn't make sense, Mr. Friesen said, noting that his group has asked state lawmakers to provide more funding.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Well, at least if the kids can avoid scurvy until they reach age 4, they'll be fine. Obviously, they need to go out, get a job, and make something of themselves. Either that, or step up and take care of themselves while mom goes out and gets a better job. The bad news is, there are now fewer child support enforcement workers now to help them make their dads pay for the fruit to replace it.

Apparently, pimp'in IS easier these days.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Tax cuts not payed for take money from everyone.
Buddy one thing I heard today that seem shocking. 7000 Juniors and Senior high school student drop out of school every week.
They don't come back. Guess who will pay for that in the future.
They all can't be low income. But they may be the rest of there lives.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
djv said:
Guess who will pay for that in the future.
.

they will pay for it unless you leftists make workers pay for it

removing incentive for high achievement will only encourage more and more to drop out

then the leftists will have more votes to garner and more people to hook up to their government feeding tubes
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
"removing incentive for high achievement will only encourage more and more to drop out"

This must be how the good doctor thinks people reason.

Let's see, welfare or be a doctor? Doctor or wefare? Welfare or doctor? Who pays less taxes? Welfare!
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
StevieD said:
"
This must be how the good doctor thinks people reason.

yes, people will only do painful things (like sit through the boredom of a government funded education of which a good part of teachers are nincompoops) for INCENTIVE

you take the INCENTIVE away and you lose students

simple as that

another example: Dr. Freeze subjects himself to abuse through years of school and subordination so he can make good money some day

you leftists are not able to grasp such complicated ideas i guess
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
This whole thing is whats wrong with us. How much money did we spend paying our great leaders in government to figure out how to cut 2.31 to 1.62 and what age to cut these kids off from fruit. The bottom line is : the farmers lost their welfare payout that they payed some clown good money to go to Washington and get their piece of the pie. The gov. was paying the farmers for fruit they would throw out anyway. This stupid shit started when some smart ass reb and dems signed the bill.
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
If the people of Penn were smart enough to vote for the right people on the local level, that's were it starts, they may have found a way to get the farmers to give fruit away for nothing. This whole thing was designed by and created by those with money in the name of helping the poor. It's all a bunch off bull shit so the dem & reb can pander their case to their parties far left and right ass holes. The dems can say we care about you, see we are helping the old and poor & the far right like the good DR can say what he did up top. It's a great game.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
It could be worse. The little tykes could have to pay the taxes of the top 5%.
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
Its simple, you see, just take away the incentive of government hand outs and those 3 year olds will get off their ass and figure out a way to provide for themselves. Then the hard working, god fearing, flag waving, George Bush loving, honest Americans like ourselves don't have to support these lazy good for nothing 2 and 3 year olds out there and can get back to spending the billions and billions of dollars we need to fund our idiotic occupation of Iraq and pay off Haliburton.
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
Jabberwocky said:
Its simple, you see, just take away the incentive of government hand outs and those 3 year olds will get off their ass and figure out a way to provide for themselves. Then the hard working, god fearing, flag waving, George Bush loving, honest Americans like ourselves don't have to support these lazy good for nothing 2 and 3 year olds out there and can get back to spending the billions and billions of dollars we need to fund our idiotic occupation of Iraq and pay off Haliburton.
good stuff !
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,480
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
Funny that problem rariely exist in "traditional" families.

You think the 70% + illegitamacy rate might remotely have some bearing here?

--and can I assume your game plan is more money will deter them?
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
DOGS THAT BARK said:
Funny that problem rariely exist in "traditional" families.

You think the 70% + illegitamacy rate might remotely have some bearing here?

--and can I assume your game plan is more money will deter them?
who are you talking to and what are you talking about ?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,480
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
I'm saying bulk of these children come from families with one parent families--whose intent is not raising family but rather a paycheck--while I do have sympathy for the children--I also realize most of them will be joining same ranks in next generation.

I think allowing one mistake--paying for one dependent only--would do much more to solve prob--then rewarding them per how many they can pop out in their lifetime.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Divorce rate in this country is 52%. No region is spared. They come in all colors. To blame single families for all these problems might miss the mark. Maybe we should fine why the divorce rate is so high. I would say that is a long term problem that will affect or country more then gays getting married. But we worry more about the gays. We have some sad folks running congress thats for sure.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
DOGS THAT BARK said:
I'm saying bulk of these children come from families with one parent families--whose intent is not raising family but rather a paycheck--while I do have sympathy for the children--I also realize most of them will be joining same ranks in next generation.

I think allowing one mistake--paying for one dependent only--would do much more to solve prob--then rewarding them per how many they can pop out in their lifetime.

I think this is a pretty fair point, Dogs. This is the kind of thing that we need to try to move to as a legislative theory...allow a little from what is in place...use some intelligent changes to the existing situation to try to affect positive change (man...that was deep crap even from me... :142smilie). I was toying with the idea of having a kind of forum experiment where we start a thread to try to come up with a solution on a problem, like welfare/entitlement programs. Maybe I will. But I like your idea as a start.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top