One in 10 Kansas households go hungry

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-01-18 01:51am

Think hunger isn't a problem in America? Think again

Study: One in 10 Kansas households goes hungry
WICHITA (AP) -- Tens of thousands of Kansas families don't get enough to eat, a study found.

The Kansas Health Institute reported in the study released Thursday that each year, about one in 10 Kansas households reported having uncertain access to food sometime during the previous year.

Of the 105,000 households that worried about food, about one-third, or 38,000 households statewide, had one or more members who went hungry at some time during the year because they could not afford enough food. The other two-thirds of the households managed by eating less-varied diets, participating in federal food assistance programs or relying on charity.

The study found that families headed by women and minorities were more likely to worry about food. Twenty-four percent of households led by blacks and 21 percent led by Hispanics reported food insecurity, compared with 8 percent of white households. The study also found 38 percent of households headed by a single mother dealt with food insecurity.

The institute, a Topeka-based nonprofit health policy and research organization, analyzed census data from 1995 through 2000 to evaluate "food security" -- access to adequate amounts of food at all times -- and hunger in Kansas.

The results "dispel a lot of myths" about hunger, said Barbara LaClair, lead author of the study. "This issue ... is more than an isolated concern."

For instance, holding down a job wasn't a guarantee that families would have enough to eat. More than half, 58 percent, of "food insecure" families had at least one full-time worker in the household; 18 percent had two or more.

Also, there was no significant difference in the rate of hunger among urban and rural households.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-18 01:55am

I'd like to see this study duplicated by another organization producing similar results. Not that I have any reason to doubt the credibility of the organization in question, it's just that I have trouble believing the problem is pervasive as reported.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-01-18 12:44pm

I agree we need more data. I know there are people out there on the boarder of hunger, but I'd bet there are some fundamental reasons for this.

Nothing was mentioned about number of children. Id bet a large number of the Hispanics were recent immigrants with minimal English skills.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-01-18 02:30pm

If it gets to the mainstream media, I'm sure it will be blamed on Bush.

I mean come on he even let mad cow disease to enter the country. Man he should have been on top of that one.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-01-18 04:13pm

It's not the number of children. It's not the number or lack of working adults. It's the problem of trying to pay rent, bills, clothe your kids, and still try to have something more than Ramen Noodles for dinner, when you're only getting paid $6-$7/hour.

Hell... I get paid $8.50/hour, full time plus, and I sometimes fall short of money because of bills. A friend of mine just took us to the store and bought a few necessaries for us (milk, eggs, bread), because we're living on $4 until the end of the month.

But my bills are paid... two of them paid in full, no more finance charges on them. Doesn't that count for something?

No one should ever have to chose between food and bills... but thousands are forced to every payday.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-01-18 06:18pm

LadyTevar wrote:It's not the number of children. It's not the number or lack of working adults. It's the problem of trying to pay rent, bills, clothe your kids, and still try to have something more than Ramen Noodles for dinner, when you're only getting paid $6-$7/hour.

Nobody making $6-7/hr should have kids. That's my point.

Hell... I get paid $8.50/hour, full time plus, and I sometimes fall short of money because of bills. A friend of mine just took us to the store and bought a few necessaries for us (milk, eggs, bread), because we're living on $4 until the end of the month.

$8.50 is not enough to be living on your own unless you live in a very low cost area, even then its not enough. When I was making $8.50 an hour I lived at home. Thats the way it was even though I was 25 years old. I dont know your personal sitatuion, parents or relatives may not be available.

But my bills are paid... two of them paid in full, no more finance charges on them. Doesn't that count for something?

Yes, it does. Paying your bills on time will reflect on your credit history and FICO score. This will help you down the road when you need to borrow money for a car or home.

No one should ever have to chose between food and bills... but thousands are forced to every payday.

Nobody should go hungry in the USA. But "forced" is the wrong word to use if they make never ending series of bad financial decisions.

Dont get me wrong, Im not saying you are making bad decisions, only that a lot of people who are chronically in money trouble usually have zero skills when it comes to money management. I see it in my family, co-workers, and people I grew up with.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-01-18 07:25pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:Nobody making $6-7/hr should have kids. That's my point.

That may be an extremely practical way of thinking, but it's 100% unrealistic.

StimNeuro · Post by **StimNeuro** » 2004-01-18 08:06pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:Nobody making $6-7/hr should have kids. That's my point.
That may be an extremely practical way of thinking, but it's 100% unrealistic.

Not really. Baring rape, you have a choice whether to have children or not. If you can't afford to raise them, then you shouldn't have them.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2004-01-18 08:11pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Nobody making $6-7/hr should have kids. That's my point.

It's not quite that simple. For one thing, try telling someone that they either need to earn more or be Darwinized. Then there's also the long term adverse economic effects of only allowing people above a certain income level to breed.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-18 08:12pm

Spyder wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Nobody making $6-7/hr should have kids. That's my point.
It's not quite that simple. For one thing, try telling someone that they either need to earn more or be Darwinized. Then there's also the long term adverse economic effects of only allowing people above a certain income level to breed.

No one's saying that you shouldn't be allowed to breed if you can't afford the kid, just that you shouldn't. It's a cruel, selfish thing to do.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-01-18 09:31pm

Whats unrealistic about it? If you live in poverty, having kids is stupid and irresponsible. Indeed, its almost premeditated child abuse. Its not like you just slip on gum one day and get pregnant... take some responsiblity!

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-18 09:36pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:Nobody making $6-7/hr should have kids. That's my point.
That may be an extremely practical way of thinking, but it's 100% unrealistic.

True, but if you don't make much money and you keep kicking out kids, then I don't think its unrealistic for other people to say your a dumbfuck.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-01-19 04:19am

Spyder wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Nobody making $6-7/hr should have kids. That's my point.
It's not quite that simple. For one thing, try telling someone that they either need to earn more or be Darwinized. Then there's also the long term adverse economic effects of only allowing people above a certain income level to breed.

Where did I say they should not BE ALLOWED to have kids. Its simple economics, have kids when you are poor you stay poor. Its not that expensive to use birth control.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-01-19 06:10am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Spyder wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Nobody making $6-7/hr should have kids. That's my point.
It's not quite that simple. For one thing, try telling someone that they either need to earn more or be Darwinized. Then there's also the long term adverse economic effects of only allowing people above a certain income level to breed.
Where did I say they should not BE ALLOWED to have kids. Its simple economics, have kids when you are poor you stay poor. Its not that expensive to use birth control.

ever hear of alcohol? even without, people can fall on hard times when they allready have kids not to mention accidents even with contraceptives. To say someone shouldnt have kids when on low wages is nice, but somewhat simplisitc.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-19 12:48pm

ever hear of alcohol? even without, people can fall on hard times when they allready have kids not to mention accidents even with contraceptives.

Abortion.

To say someone shouldnt have kids when on low wages is nice, but somewhat simplisitc.

How? Do you in fact deny that having children you can't afford is a bad idea? Then why all the fuss?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-19 01:01pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:Nobody making $6-7/hr should have kids. That's my point.
That may be an extremely practical way of thinking, but it's 100% unrealistic.

Why is it unrealistic? The fact is if you're working a job at McDonalds for your primary income you're not in a good position to raise kids. Kids cost money, lots of it. And if you're having a hard time supporting yourself you should think long and hard before you have kids. That's realistic.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-19 01:14pm

As for the survery itself, I'd really like to see how they arrived at those numbers. "Analysed" is pretty damn vague.

The other thing I'd like to see is a more detailed break down of just who these people are: education level, family size, marital status, etc. Because all this seems to be confirming to me is the already obvious trends that those who make bad choices have it tough.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-01-19 09:48pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:
ever hear of alcohol?

Ever hear of personal responsibility? Alcohol induced pregnancy is the very height of being a dumbass.

Stuart Mackey wrote: even without, people can fall on hard times when they allready have kids not to mention accidents even with contraceptives. To say someone shouldnt have kids when on low wages is nice, but somewhat simplisitc.

I know all about hard times. Programs should exist for people in hard times, they do exist. But what guess what? If all you do is cut a check without ever looking into the reasons why people are in trouble all you do is produce a permanent welfare class.

Saying someone should not have kids they cant afford is not simplistic. Its a given. Sex has tendancy to produce children, thats reality too many people dont seem to get.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-19 10:45pm

The problem with these kinds of arguments is that there are two very real, and opposing viewpoints.

Viewpoint 1: it's the parents' fault for being stupid and having kids when they couldn't afford them, so fuck 'em.

Viewpoint 2: the kids should not be sentenced to lives of misery because of their parents' bad choices. Society should try to do something to help.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-19 10:52pm

Or Viewpoint 3: Prevention is better than cure, and society should take steps to encourage parents not to have kids they can't afford to take care of.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-01-19 10:53pm

Darth Wong wrote:The problem with these kinds of arguments is that there are two very real, and opposing viewpoints.

Viewpoint 1: it's the parents' fault for being stupid and having kids when they couldn't afford them, so fuck 'em.

Viewpoint 2: the kids should not be sentenced to lives of misery because of their parents' bad choices. Society should try to do something to help.

I think that is very true. My problem with arguement #2 is supporters of #2 never seem to want and try to prevent such mistakes in the future.

I think society has to find a solution somewhere in the middle. Too little social net and you make it impossible to survive a crisis. Too much social net and you have a permanent class of dysfunctionals.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-01-19 11:00pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:Nobody making $6-7/hr should have kids. That's my point.
That may be an extremely practical way of thinking, but it's 100% unrealistic.
Why is it unrealistic? The fact is if you're working a job at McDonalds for your primary income you're not in a good position to raise kids. Kids cost money, lots of it. And if you're having a hard time supporting yourself you should think long and hard before you have kids. That's realistic.

No, that's the practical side of it.
It's unrealistic because there are a vast number of idiots who will reproduce no matter what their circumstances are. Sometimes accidentally, which goes even further to demonstrate their lack of brains.
And sometimes purposefully, just so they can have a baby to cuddle with.
It's unrealistic to think that you can limit people's reproduction based on income. Not in a free society.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-19 11:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:The problem with these kinds of arguments is that there are two very real, and opposing viewpoints.

Viewpoint 1: it's the parents' fault for being stupid and having kids when they couldn't afford them, so fuck 'em.

Viewpoint 2: the kids should not be sentenced to lives of misery because of their parents' bad choices. Society should try to do something to help.

Or as Durran said, that we shouldn't just fuck over the kids but we ought to work on methods to prevent it from happening as well as encouraging them to better their own situation. I don't think any one wants to see children starving because their parents couldn't provide for them. It's just a lot of people are wary of aid becase a helping hand all too often becomes a hand out.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-01-21 04:40am

Joe wrote:
ever hear of alcohol? even without, people can fall on hard times when they allready have kids not to mention accidents even with contraceptives.
Abortion.

Personal belieifs. There are enough people around, religious or not, who dont go for that.

To say someone shouldnt have kids when on low wages is nice, but somewhat simplisitc.

How? Do you in fact deny that having children you can't afford is a bad idea? Then why all the fuss?[/quote]

Of course is a bad Idea, but it happens, its a fact of life.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-01-21 04:46am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Ever hear of personal responsibility? Alcohol induced pregnancy is the very height of being a dumbass.

Irrelivant..it happens..like shit. You think the world is some perfect place where people always make the right choices?

Stuart Mackey wrote: even without, people can fall on hard times when they allready have kids not to mention accidents even with contraceptives. To say someone shouldnt have kids when on low wages is nice, but somewhat simplisitc.

I know all about hard times. Programs should exist for people in hard times, they do exist. But what guess what? If all you do is cut a check without ever looking into the reasons why people are in trouble all you do is produce a permanent welfare class.

Saying someone should not have kids they cant afford is not simplistic. Its a given. Sex has tendancy to produce children, thats reality too many people dont seem to get.[/quote]

So? you think a child should suffer for the mistakes of their parents?These things happen, its unrelistic to think that they shouldnt.