|WikiProject United States Public Policy||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject United States / Government||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
This article needs rewriten
If I knew how to add a non PoV banner, I would. Most of this article reads like an opinion piece. A specific example is the last paragragh in the Food Package section. It is completly unsourced, and reads like a blog post. If I had the time, knowledge or writing skills to fix this article, I would, but I don't, so someone else needs to fix this article. It's almost an embarasment. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The last sentence is a subjective statement
- (Please sign your contributions by inserting four "~"s at the end of your response.)
- Complying with retail personnel may seem like a subjective statement, but unlike US state-administered food stamp programs, WIC's stipulations are not up for debate at all.
- They are completely prescribed, totally defined, extensively reviewed by recipients with government officials well beforehand, and set in stone. Vordabois (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please double-check the "...eligibility requirement is a family income below 185% of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines" assertion? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the way it's worded makes it appear as though in order to qualify, you must be so far below the poverty level that you not only aren't earning any income, you actually owe money on a monthly basis. I'm not too familiar with WIC or its guidelines, but I can't imagine that's correct. Two of my friends were or are currently in the WIC program, and they definitely had income, and they were 185% below the poverty line. Thanks.
- I happened to have WIC's website up at the moment, and found this blurb:
- The State agency's income standard must be between 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines (issued each year by the Department of Health and Human Services), but cannot be more than 185 percent of the Federal poverty income guidelines.
- The way it's worded in the article doesn't sound quite the same as the way it's presented here. It sounds to me like the income requirements are that you either must be AT the poverty line, or be no more than 85% OVER the poverty line, not that your family's total income must be more than 185% below the poverty line. Perhaps someone could rewrite that sentence?
- Link: http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/eligibilityrequirements.htm
- JerseyGirlMedia (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- The verbiage is consistent with the Federal regulations text and the nomenclature of WIC administrators. That is, a persons income must be below 185% of the poverty level. Admittedly, this is an unusually way to look at it, but if you focus on the fact that 185% of a number is greater than the number itself, then it may help to gleam that you can have an income almost twice the poverty level and still qualify.
- Link: http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/incomeguidelines.htm
- Dkar3126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I came here (as a European) to get an understanding of http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=A947980&entry=20725&mode=date (item 2). From this diary entry it appears that the program is not without its flaws and controversies. The article would benefit from a discussion of these. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably there's no need to address this, since well over a year has passed... but I don't like seeing open-ended suggestions that might be detrimental to articles. :)
- Basically, what she's talking about there isn't unusual. Phrased more objectively: If you're going to ask for government assistance, particularly associated with a very specific expense, you have to show that you're making a reasonable attempt to collect on other money that might be owed for that expense. In this case... "hello government! Can I have money for my kid?" "Sure! Assuming you prove that you've arranged for the kid's father to pay for the kid you're asking us to help support." Frankly, it's no different from saying you need to prove you're actually looking for a job if you want to keep collecting on unemployment.
- Perhaps more on point, simply put, it isn't uncommon by any stretch. So it isn't really worth including in the article unless there are a few RS's raising a stink about it. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Canned Tuna Fish
Seeing as cheap canned tuna fish is high in mercury and the WIC provides low cost canned fish, why is there no information on the mercury levels of those provided with this food. Mercury in developing children and fetuses is shown to increase the probability of a multitude of mental problems. My mother has worked for the health department for many years and she knows what the US government's position has been with regards to canned tuna fish. -- Azemocram (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this really a section? Has anyone actually read this? Most of those same "responsibilities" apply to cash, credit cards, coupons, and practically any other form of "currency." The section reads more like a joke than an encyclopedic entry.
"Complying with retail personnel during a WIC transaction." Seriously?
I can only see one reason someone would add this section to this article. He was trying to make the WIC program look like it placed a burden on its users. Unless some spirited discussion occurs here and someone justifies this section, I'm going to move the relevant points (such as the mention of eligible items) to the main article and I'm going to delete this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Average cost to taxpayers?
After an argument as to the cost (per taxpayer) of this welfare program, I was unable to find this information in the article. Would this not be considered relevant information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Only one in nine non-participating children nationwide are ineligible for WIC aid.
This is beyond silly. There has to be some additional qualification for this to begin making sense. It simply cannot be true that over 90% of children in the USA are eligible for WIC. ~ MD Otley (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)