Right here in America: "'food deserts' -- these are areas without a supermarket"

I agree with this-

So, for the conservative to blame America’s poor for their plight rather than to have compassion on them just as Jesus Christ had compassion on the poor Jews of His time is every bit the rejection of Biblical truth as is the liberal who believes that it is possible to eliminate poverty. The only difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that poverty can be eliminated with socialism, and conservatives believe that it can be eliminated with capitalism and with “values.”

as a fair generalization, but I don’t agree with this-

much of conservative Christianity in America does the opposite: exalting the wealthy and powerful, claiming that their wealth and power is evidence of their possessing some spiritual or moral virtue, and while viewing the poor with spite and derision.

Basically, we are in this mess because the church has abdicated its responsibility to care for the poor to the gov’t. There are still many churches, however, with food and clothing pantries, and most charitable organizations are Christian in origin, even if they’ve strayed away from their initial foundations. But overall I believe we spend too much time thinking gov’t has an important and legitimate role in providing the necessities of life for those in poverty through taxation (and I believe their motive is not to care for the poor but to create a base of power on the backs of the needy), instead of each of us as individuals and corporately as a church bearing one another’s burdens, caring for the fatherless, widows, and poor. Let’s put the responsibility and shame where it belongs. But I do agree that the poor will always be with us and that our goal should not be to eradicate poverty but to fulfill our obligation to alleviate it where and when we are able.

I’d like to see our gov’t reduced to basic infrastructure and law enforcement- and that’s it. Leave commerce and education etc to the states and communities, and charity with churches and individuals. If there are churches in these food deserts, they can find creative and appropriate ways to address the problem. If there are no churches in these areas, then it sounds like there’s a lack of nourishment all right- but not just the physical kind.

[JobK] First of all, Jesus Christ said that the poor would always be with us. Poverty is an inevitable part of the human condition in all societies because of original sin. To deny this truth because of America’s merits is to reject Christianity for paganism. America’s positive attributes cannot overcome original sin, nor does it nullify Jesus Christ’s teachings. So, for the conservative to blame America’s poor for their plight rather than to have compassion on them just as Jesus Christ had compassion on the poor Jews of His time is every bit the rejection of Biblical truth as is the liberal who believes that it is possible to eliminate poverty. The only difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that poverty can be eliminated with socialism, and conservatives believe that it can be eliminated with capitalism and with “values.” .

Our Lord did not say why we would always have the poor with us, just that this condition is something that will remain and its comment was with respect to the use of something of value in worship of Christ and had nothing to do with the why or how of lacking. Just as we will always have wealthy people, the Lord did not comment one way or the other regarding what schemes lead to poverty, simply that this condition will be with us. So to assume or claim that prescribing, in a land of opportunity, self-remedies to those who can self-remedy their lacking is an expression of insensitivity or apathy based on this passage, is to ignore the context of the passage or misuse it and ignore the truth that it is self-remedy that aids a man most. In fact, it is of the utmost lack of compassion and disregard for the true logisitical need of a man or group to ignore the most significant contributors of their lacking and attend to the effects, instead, resulting in an exacerbation of the problem and not providing true remedy.

As to original sin, no one is suggesting liberty and opportunity are means to overcoming original sin. So this evocation is meaningless.

But here you seem want to pretend there is one of two options, take responsibility for yourself or have compassion. Such limited considerations will always cripple you in formulating a personal or social antidote. Requiring people and teaching people to take personal and/or cultural responsibility for their condition is not a lack of compassion, it is the very greatest act of compassion. It leads them to personal freedom and bondage to excuse making and irresponsibility that leads to just the condition in which many find themselves. The promotion of the highest order leads to, the highest order.

[Susan R] Basically, we are in this mess because the church has abdicated its responsibility to care for the poor to the gov’t. There are still many churches, however, with food and clothing pantries, and most charitable organizations are Christian in origin, even if they’ve strayed away from their initial foundations.

Susan, I would challenge this concept as a corporate church responsibility. Should Christians be helping meet the needs of their neighbors as they are able? Absolutely! Should the church be opening food banks and handing out rent payments? I don’t think so. Charitable organizations run by Christians are great; sidetracking the corporate church from its mandate is not. I think the abdicating of responsibility runs much deeper, at a personal level.

Meeting needs as a church corporately is simply individuals pooling their resources. I don’t think the ‘church’ is such a fragile entity that people are going to spontaneously combust if they bring clothing and food to the church and dispense it in an organized manner. But I also don’t believe in the church just passing stuff out indiscriminately.

There are some kids who come to our church whose mother left home. They got lice at school and didn’t want to come to church infected. So another lady and I gathered up lice treatment stuff and combs, brought the kids to the church on a Saturday, and treated and combed hair for 8 hours. Funds to feed the kids was supplied by the church. That is the kind of care that people need- a personal relationship and meaningful help- not just handing them money and things and saying “Go home and deal”. It’s true that many food pantries and such operate in this manner- they open the doors and hand out food and clothing without becoming involved on a personal level. This is much more comfortable than actually getting personal with folks, and you still get to feel good about yourself. Yuck.

This is the title from an article in the Philadelphia newspaper. I offer it only to counter the charge of “Food Desert Scam.” http://www.philly.com/philly/news/special_packages/106297498.html?viewA…

I might also mention how there seems to be less opposition to government intervention and handouts when we are personally the beneficiaries. How many leaning-right, small government citizens traded in their cars for in the cash-for-clunkers program (with over 2 billion in rebates) or took a credit worth thousands of dollars to purchase a house? Or how about the billions of outlays to bail out car companies? I guess it’s okay if it stimulates the economy but 400 million to invest in supermarkets in communities where fewer people benefited from the car rebates or housing credits, forget about it!

[Daniel] I have seen this lady walk to our local grocer (probably from our apt complex 1 mile away). No big deal until you drop it to 10 degrees and snow. That is not a joke, I have seen her do this. Couple bags of groceries each time.

This happens all year long here in Poland. It’s all a matter of “what you are used to”. ifyou are used to walking daily, 1 mile or so, carrying a couple of bags of groceries (either walking or riding a bike). it’s tough. No doubt about it, but many people do take public transportation here in Poland to get groceries. i’ve done it. it’s not easy though.

Mostly it’s priorities. Not having a car for people who are used to using public transportation just isn’t that big of a deal. In fact, some actually choose to not have a car (I can readily think of a couple of blog writers on PF—personal finance who would rather use their money other ways).

Not having a decent grocery store in an area is a problem. I’ve experienced it. I empathize with anyone who has to pay high retail for groceries because you have no other good stores in the area.

But most of the time, the government isn’t the problem. Maybe some financial incentives for someone to do it (tax breaks, etc)…but I hope they stay out of the grocery business!

[Steve Davis] This is the title from an article in the Philadelphia newspaper. I offer it only to counter the charge of “Food Desert Scam.” http://www.philly.com/philly/news/special_packages/106297498.html?viewA…

I might also mention how there seems to be less opposition to government intervention and handouts when we are personally the beneficiaries. How many leaning-right, small government citizens traded in their cars for in the cash-for-clunkers program (with over 2 billion in rebates) or took a credit worth thousands of dollars to purchase a house? Or how about the billions of outlays to bail out car companies? I guess it’s okay if it stimulates the economy but 400 million to invest in supermarkets in communities where fewer people benefited from the car rebates or housing credits, forget about it!

The story fails completely to document how or why the situation developed or is perpetuated. The only remedy mentioned is “if the rest of the city decided to get involved”. No interest is shown in exploring the responsibility of the parents or stating that it could be remedied if they took greater responsibility for their lives. But in the end, they are not in a food desert. To describe these people as being in a food desert is to insult genuinely starving people. They may be in a place where fresh fruit is not convenient to them but certainly not inaccessible.

A very telling admission, though, is contained in the article regarding the choice to drink water or sugar drinks:

The 8-ounce children’s drink known as Little Hug - a brightly colored child-size plastic barrel covered with foil - is “enormously prevalent” in the First District, according to Terri Lipman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing.

“Kids prefer Hugs to bottled water. Poor African American kids say drinking bottled water is viewed as a white people’s thing.”

Remember that little point about personal and cultural rehabilitation? Right here for you.

[Steve Davis] I might also mention how there seems to be less opposition to government intervention and handouts when we are personally the beneficiaries. How many leaning-right, small government citizens traded in their cars for in the cash-for-clunkers program (with over 2 billion in rebates) or took a credit worth thousands of dollars to purchase a house? Or how about the billions of outlays to bail out car companies? I guess it’s okay if it stimulates the economy but 400 million to invest in supermarkets in communities where fewer people benefited from the car rebates or housing credits, forget about it!

.. if some people talk out of both sides of their mouth it negates the basic principles we are trying to address? It ISN’T ok for the gov’t to bail anyone out, take control of bank and financial institutions and health insurance. And it isn’t OK for people to oppose gov’t spending and then line up at the gov’t cow to see how much they can milk out of the system.

We have a seriously screwed up view of poverty- if anyone has ever been to someplace like the Philippines, where kids walk for miles and line up, at the big pot of rice and fish that the missionaries made, with little coffee mugs and bowls, knowing that it is the only hot meal they might get for 2-3 days- then you know that we in America have no business acting like a lack of automobile ownership, cable tv, computer access, air conditioning and wall-to-wall carpet is actually Poverty. Are we really going to have a case of the vapors if someone has to walk a few miles to a fully stocked grocery store a couple of times a week, where they can load up on meat and potatoes and milk and cheese? Saints preserve us- and they actually have to CARRY it home? Lack of perspective much.

If having access to fresh fruits and veggies was really such an overwhelming desire for families in poverty, shouldn’t we see that desire reflected in what someone using gov’t assistance purchases? Or - should the gov’t limit food stamp purchases to healthier choices?

I don’t see how putting a gov’t subsidized grocery store in a food desert is suddenly going to result in people eating healthier. It is a scam in that regard.

[Susan R] I don’t see how putting a gov’t subsidized grocery store in a food desert is suddenly going to result in people eating healthier. It is a scam in that regard.

You’re right. But the point of the article’s scam was that there are no food deserts. Whether government should intrude is another fish to fry. My point was that most Americans don’t mind government intrusion when it benefits them.

I didn’t perceive the author as saying that there are no ‘food deserts’, but that there is 1) more than one way to interpret data that is being used to support this $400 million program 2) the small percentage of people living more than one mile from a store shouldn’t automatically equal a gov’t program costing $400 million.

Also, the basis of this new gov’t scam program is that

American children are growing fat because their parents cannot get to a supermarket — to buy fruits and vegetables — without undergoing the hardship of boarding a bus or riding a taxi.

As a consequence, food-desert-dwelling children are forced to eat fast food and junk procured at chain restaurants and convenience stores.

That’s why I said that the sudden appearance of a major grocery store in these neighborhoods is not going to result in fresh fruit and salads on every table. Most people make poor food choices because they want to make poor food choices. Every el cheapo chain restaurant I’ve ever been in served salads, juice, milk, and some even serve fruit and yogurt. No one is ‘forcing’ anyone to load up on Cheetos and Fruit Roll-Ups.

And on what planet is junk food all that cheap anyway? Have you seen the price of a bag of Ruffles lately? $4.29 at Kroger the last time I looked. That’s enough to buy a bag of apples, or 3 cans of fruit/vegetables, or 2 large cans of Healthy Choice vegetable soup…

Sorry for the brief diversion, but I just noticed this:

[Susan R] Mothers are those wonderful people who can get up in the morning before the smell of coffee.

That’s just the opposite in my house! It’s the kids or I who make coffee before my wife will start to feel human when getting up. Good line, though!

In honor of your wife (who is probably up for sainthood by now) I’ll change my sig.

Liberal “food desert” meme fails. A quote from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/health/research/pairing-of-food-deser…] the article (bold mine):

It has become an article of faith among some policy makers and advocates, including Michelle Obama, that poor urban neighborhoods are food deserts, bereft of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Related in Opinion

But two new studies have found something unexpected. Such neighborhoods not only have more fast food restaurants and convenience stores than more affluent ones, but more grocery stores, supermarkets and full-service restaurants, too. And there is no relationship between the type of food being sold in a neighborhood and obesity among its children and adolescents.

(ironically, the Obama water carriers, the NYT, published the first article)

When I read this article it brought to mind this thread which I am certain should compel some to take inventory regarding their perspective and arguments on the matter.