Study: Food Stamps Boost Child Health And Development
Click here for reuse options!…a newly published study concludes WIC doesn’t just boost the health of young children and their moms: It also plays a positive role in kids’ cognitive development.
“These findings suggest that WIC meaningfully contributes to children’s educational prospects,” Brown University sociologist Margot Jackson writes in the journal Social Science and Medicine.
WIC is a large-scale government program serving 53 percent of all infants born in the United States. It provides vouchers that are redeemed at supermarkets for healthy, nutritious food such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Pregnant and breastfeeding women are eligible, as are children up their fifth birthday; parents also receive nutritional education and counseling.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
30 responses to Study: Food Stamps Boost Child Health And Development
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tiredoftea December 21st, 2014 at 23:32
Well, we sure can’t have healthy poor kids growing up, can we? They might learn about democracy, or vote or demand equality. We sure can’t have that happen.
Wayout December 22nd, 2014 at 08:35
Poor kids should be fed by their mothers and fathers working hard to provide food for them. If they can’t handle the responsibility of providing for their own children’s daily needs they should stop making them.
jasperjava December 22nd, 2014 at 09:21
Here’s the conservative “pro-life” view in a nutshell.
Larry Schmitt December 22nd, 2014 at 10:50
Bingo! But to be honest, it should be changed to “pro-conception.” Actual life, they’re not so keen on.
Larry Schmitt December 22nd, 2014 at 10:49
It’s too bad the people who actually vote republican can’t hear that this is what the candidates are actually saying.
tiredoftea December 22nd, 2014 at 12:23
Advice that your parents should have taken.
tiredoftea December 22nd, 2014 at 00:32
Well, we sure can’t have healthy poor kids growing up, can we? They might learn about democracy, or vote or demand equality. We sure can’t have that happen.
Wayout December 22nd, 2014 at 09:35
Poor kids should be fed by their mothers and fathers working hard to provide food for them. If they can’t handle the responsibility of providing for their own children’s daily needs they should stop making them.
jasperjava December 22nd, 2014 at 10:21
Here’s the conservative “pro-life” view in a nutshell.
Larry Schmitt December 22nd, 2014 at 11:50
Bingo! But to be honest, it should be changed to “pro-conception.” Actual life, they’re not so keen on.
Larry Schmitt December 22nd, 2014 at 11:49
It’s too bad the people who actually vote republican can’t hear that this is what the candidates are actually saying.
tiredoftea December 22nd, 2014 at 13:23
Advice that your parents should have taken.
jasperjava December 22nd, 2014 at 02:17
Republicans don’t WANT to boost children’s health and development. If we don’t allow children to become the next generation of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, who will be voting Republican in the future?
jasperjava December 22nd, 2014 at 03:17
Republicans don’t WANT to boost children’s health and development. If we don’t allow children to become the next generation of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, who will be voting Republican in the future?
rg9rts December 22nd, 2014 at 03:32
Add children to those the gopee hates…protect to the extreme in the womb then ignored when hungry…what a sweet bunch..
rg9rts December 22nd, 2014 at 04:32
Add children to those the gopee hates…protect to the extreme in the womb then ignored when hungry…what a sweet bunch..
Abby Normal December 22nd, 2014 at 07:09
Today’s Republicans make Ebeneezer Scrooge look like a “bleeding heart liberal” humanitarian.
Abby Normal December 22nd, 2014 at 08:09
Today’s Republicans make Ebeneezer Scrooge look like a “bleeding heart liberal” humanitarian.
Wayout December 22nd, 2014 at 08:38
Generations of children have made it through life without WIC because parents used to provide for their own offspring. I wonder what happened?
jasperjava December 22nd, 2014 at 08:55
Obviously you didn’t benefit from the cognitive development provided by WIC. You sound like Archie and Edith Bunker :
“Didn’t need no welfare state
Everybody pulled his weight
Gee that old LaSalle ran great
Those were the days!”
(the conservative anthem)
Societies evolve. Societies learn new ways to organize themselves and improve ways of doing things. In “your day” children went to school hungry, and you were fine with that. Conservatives basically don’t care. “I’ve got mine, screw everyone else.”
Larry Schmitt December 22nd, 2014 at 10:47
And millions of people survived for previous generations without the benefit of vaccines. And for years kids survived riding in their parents’ cars without the benefit of seat belts, so let’s do away with those too. The fact that something actually improves someone’s chances of a healthier life is enough reason to continue it.
Wayout December 22nd, 2014 at 09:38
Generations of children have made it through life without WIC because parents used to provide for their own offspring. I wonder what happened?
jasperjava December 22nd, 2014 at 09:55
Obviously you didn’t benefit from the cognitive development provided by WIC. You sound like Archie and Edith Bunker :n”Didn’t need no welfare statenEverybody pulled his weightnGee that old LaSalle ran great nThose were the days!”n(the conservative anthem)nnSocieties evolve. Societies learn new ways to organize themselves and improve ways of doing things. In “your day” children went to school hungry, and you were fine with that. Conservatives basically don’t care. “I’ve got mine, screw everyone else.”
Larry Schmitt December 22nd, 2014 at 11:47
And millions of people survived for previous generations without the benefit of vaccines. And for years kids survived riding in their parents’ cars without the benefit of seat belts, so let’s do away with those too. The fact that something actually improves someone’s chances of a healthier life is enough reason to continue it.
R.J. Carter December 22nd, 2014 at 11:31
As informative as the statistics try to be, this stat just makes me sad.
“WIC is a large-scale government program serving 53 percent of all infants born in the United States.”
That high. :(
R.J. Carter December 22nd, 2014 at 12:31
As informative as the statistics try to be, this stat just makes me sad.nn”WIC is a large-scale government program serving 53 percent of all infants born in the United States.“nnThat high. :(
Dwendt44 December 22nd, 2014 at 11:50
But, but, facts don’t matter to conservatives.
Dwendt44 December 22nd, 2014 at 12:50
But, but, facts don’t matter to conservatives.
SteveD December 23rd, 2014 at 17:51
Alan, the budget cuts for the SNAP program amount to $93 MILLION, not billion. At the height of the 2009 Recovery Act program boost (47 million participants), only $90 billion per year was ever allotted for SNAP. With a miniscule amount of fraud, the SNAP program serves as an excellent economic stimulus, providing an economic multiplier of 1.5. This is quite a bit higher than the 0.2 economic multiplier of the Bush tax cuts, for instance. Just as an aside, tax subsidies for high earners (> $ 450,000.00) exceed over $250 billion per year. Any way you slice it, the very rich come out as way more dependent on government than those in SNAP or WIC.
SteveD December 23rd, 2014 at 18:51
Alan, the budget cuts for the SNAP program amount to $93 MILLION, not billion. At the height of the 2009 Recovery Act program boost (47 million participants), only $90 billion per year was ever allotted for SNAP. With a miniscule amount of fraud, the SNAP program serves as an excellent economic stimulus, providing an economic multiplier of 1.5. This is quite a bit higher than the 0.2 economic multiplier of the Bush tax cuts, for instance. Just as an aside, tax subsidies for high earners (> $ 450,000.00) exceed over $250 billion per year. Any way you slice it, the very rich come out as way more dependent on government than those in SNAP or WIC.