Comments on: The Bogus ‘Food Stamp Challenge’ Spreads; Gullible Media and The Left Eat It Up

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Thu, 24 May 2007 19:23:40 +0000

#10, if you want to debate the correctness of the aid formulas, fine. Then talk about that.

You’re saying that the average family doesn’t have $6-$15 a week available for food that the government formulas think they should have ($27-$36 minus the $21 average). Color me very skeptical.

I don’t think you know that, and it’s up to those who want to expand the program to prove it. Perhaps if they spent less time on publicity stunts and more time on research, they might be able to make a convincing case.

By: Crystal Roark

Crystal Roark — Thu, 24 May 2007 18:44:42 +0000

Actually based on consumers total income, after utility bills are paid, most do not even have $21.00 a week left for food. Most only recieve $10-30 per month. That is with the only other income being $500-$600.00 income. So this challenge will be spreading awarness to those that fall between the cracks and have to survive on much less than publically known.

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Wed, 23 May 2007 16:17:08 +0000

#8, Lisa Renee, unfortunately for you and me and the cause of healthy eating, the Challenge’s only agenda was “to make things look bad.”

By: Lisa Renee

Lisa Renee — Wed, 23 May 2007 13:56:35 +0000

If they are not precluding it with this is the “average amount” that’s true, and that fault would be on the media sources who don’t make that clear. I haven’t read all of the releases but the ones I have did make it very clear that was an average. If I missed some from those doing this that did not make this clear, then I agree with you, that doesn’t help. Why? Because by not making it clear it turns the focus on the amount rather than the larger issues, some which are valid.

Personally, as I stated no matter the amount they selected whether it be $21.00 or $36.00 a week, I would have liked to see the focus be not just based on the “OMG they are not getting enough” but also on how it’s hard, you have to be creative but it is possible to make healthy choices. Yes, that would in essence ruin the whole aspect of trying to make things look bad but realistically the larger positive could have been getting information out there for those people who are on limited budgets food stamps or no food stamps that don’t believe they can eat healthy.

By: Sam Vance

Sam Vance — Wed, 23 May 2007 13:34:57 +0000

202-628-0205 - Tim Ryan on CSPAN Now

By: John in IL

John in IL — Wed, 23 May 2007 04:31:26 +0000

You’re right. I got the error message only through the link. When I tried accessing the site directly, no error message. Sorry for being paranoid.

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Wed, 23 May 2007 02:42:34 +0000

#3 Lisa Renee, the scam part is when people (i.e., those carrying out the publicity stunt) cross the line and say that $21 is all someone has to or can spend on food per person per week. It just aint’ so.

In a truly destitute situation, a single person would get the $155 a month ($36 a week) noted above, a 2-person household $284, etc.. It’s not a king’s ransom, but if you’re going to focus on how to eat healthy for a given amount per week, the numbers in the table are the ones to focus on, NOT $21.

#4, my FF for Mac word search worked fine at Kos, and found several instances of “Walmart” (without the hyphen).

By: John in IL

John in IL — Wed, 23 May 2007 02:27:48 +0000

This kind of political pandering makes me sick. Thanks for exposing it for what it is.

Off topic, but I was curious if any of the Kos kids mentioned Wal-Mart in their comments about food stamps. Suprise, suprise, you can’t search Kos comments with the ALT/F “find”. What are they trying to hide?

By: Lisa Renee

Lisa Renee — Wed, 23 May 2007 00:51:03 +0000

I understood the $21.00 figure per week as being selected because it was stated it was the average amount - meaning there were people who received more and people who received less. I would have preferred there to be more of a focus on how to you eat healthy for that amount per week, since I think many of us have demonstrated it’s possible but I don’t think where it is clearly listed it is the average amount that’s a “scam” - if they did the challenge (which I agree is a pr move more than anything) at the highest maximum amount you’d have scores of people stating they receive food stamps and get much less than that.

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Tue, 22 May 2007 19:35:53 +0000

#1, Have been waiting for someone to tell me what you just told me.

I’m sure you know from reading the post that the $408 for a family of 3 often get reduced for other resources that are available, but your point stands.

It didn’t strike me as awful either.

And I’ll add that Charen’s column points to the more important problem among the poor as being obesity, not starvation or malnutrition as traditionally defined. It takes a lot more than $21 per person per week to eat junk.

By: swizstick

swizstick — Tue, 22 May 2007 18:17:10 +0000

Wait a minute - you are telling me that the maximum monthly allotment for a household of 3 is $408??

My family’s monthly FOOD budget (that’s strictly food - not daily household items which I classify under its own heading) is only $350.00. It’s been that way since 2005, and I haven’t raised it since. And we eat just fine.

So if a successful working man like myself only needs $350 a month for food to support a family of three, why does a struggling family on food stamps need $58 more? And my family eats pretty well - granted, we almost never go out to eat and we use plenty of coupons, but we pretty much eat what we want.