Reply
Thu 16 Nov, 2006 10:37 am
<sighs, shakes head>
Two issues here, then:
- According to the Bush administration's own data, the number of hungry Americans - sorry, the number of people living in "very low food security" - has increased for the fifth year in a row;
- The administration is resorting, typically, to Orwellian language experiments to cloak the fact (aside from postponing the pesky numbers in question until after the elections)
More proof that they deserved to lose.
Quote: America's hungry? They're just suffering from "low food security"
What do you call that phenomenon you feel when you need something to eat but can't afford to put any food on the table? We might call it "hungry," but then, we're not Bush administration officials who'd rather not acknowledge that the number of "hungry" people in America has increased over the last five years of "compassionate conservatism."
As the Washington Post reports this morning, Bush's Agriculture Department has struck the word "hungry" from its annual report on what it's now calling "food security."
The report measures the number of Americans who can't afford to put food on their table during at least some period of the year. The Agriculture Department's Mark Nord says "hungry" is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured" in the report. Thus, people formerly described as suffering "food insecurity without hunger" -- meaning that they'll probably get something to eat, somehow -- and "food insecurity with hunger" -- meaning that they'll go without food for stretches of time -- shall henceforth be known as sufferers of "low food security" and "very low food security."
Oh, and then there's this. The hunger/food insecurity report usually appears in October. This year's version -- the fifth straight to show an increase in the number of hungry Americans -- was held for release until after last week's election.
link
Food Or Medicine? Tough choices for many Seniors.
Re: Hungry in the US? No,suffering from "very low food
nimh wrote:<sighs>
Two issues here, then:
- According to the Bush administration's own data, the number of hungry Americans - sorry, the number of people living in "very low food security" - has increased for the fifth year in a row;
- The administration is resorting, typically, to Orwellian language experiments to cloak the fact (aside from postponing the pesky numbers in question until after the elections)
More proof that they deserved to lose.
Quote: America's hungry? They're just suffering from "low food security"
What do you call that phenomenon you feel when you need something to eat but can't afford to put any food on the table? We might call it "hungry," but then, we're not Bush administration officials who'd rather not acknowledge that the number of "hungry" people in America has increased over the last five years of "compassionate conservatism."
As the Washington Post reports this morning, Bush's Agriculture Department has struck the word "hungry" from its annual report on what it's now calling "food security."
The report measures the number of Americans who can't afford to put food on their table during at least some period of the year. The Agriculture Department's Mark Nord says "hungry" is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured" in the report. Thus, people formerly described as suffering "food insecurity without hunger" -- meaning that they'll probably get something to eat, somehow -- and "food insecurity with hunger" -- meaning that they'll go without food for stretches of time -- shall henceforth be known as sufferers of "low food security" and "very low food security."
Oh, and then there's this. The hunger/food insecurity report usually appears in October. This year's version -- the fifth straight to show an increase in the number of hungry Americans -- was held for release until after last week's election.
link
Why can't people eat? Who's fault is it really? Do these hungry people have jobs? Do they have an education? There are many factors to people being hungry and most of the time it isn't the govt's fault but the hungry peoples fault.
--
Quote:and "food insecurity with hunger" -- meaning that they'll go without food for stretches of time"
Didn't that used to be called "starving"?
It's interesting that these statistics using these terms were released right before Thanksgiving, a day of feasting for those Americans who have the means to do so. I guess the administration wants to lessen our guilt a little, (and maybe their own too). I mean, it's somehow easier to distance yourself from the fact that someone is suffering "low food security" than it would be to think of people "hungry" or "starving" as your family feasts.
And though we know it's happening all over the world as we gorge ourselves - we don't want to think about it happening in our own country. This terminology makes it easier not to, at least to my ear.
Re: Hungry in the US? No,suffering from "very low food
Baldimo wrote:Why can't people eat? Who's fault is it really? Do these hungry people have jobs? Do they have an education? ...
... Can they get jobs? Can they get an education? Are they stuck in Central Appalachia?
Re: Hungry in the US? No,suffering from "very low food
Baldimo wrote:nimh wrote:<sighs>
Two issues here, then:
- According to the Bush administration's own data, the number of hungry Americans - sorry, the number of people living in "very low food security" - has increased for the fifth year in a row;
- The administration is resorting, typically, to Orwellian language experiments to cloak the fact (aside from postponing the pesky numbers in question until after the elections)
More proof that they deserved to lose.
Quote: America's hungry? They're just suffering from "low food security"
What do you call that phenomenon you feel when you need something to eat but can't afford to put any food on the table? We might call it "hungry," but then, we're not Bush administration officials who'd rather not acknowledge that the number of "hungry" people in America has increased over the last five years of "compassionate conservatism."
As the Washington Post reports this morning, Bush's Agriculture Department has struck the word "hungry" from its annual report on what it's now calling "food security."
The report measures the number of Americans who can't afford to put food on their table during at least some period of the year. The Agriculture Department's Mark Nord says "hungry" is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured" in the report. Thus, people formerly described as suffering "food insecurity without hunger" -- meaning that they'll probably get something to eat, somehow -- and "food insecurity with hunger" -- meaning that they'll go without food for stretches of time -- shall henceforth be known as sufferers of "low food security" and "very low food security."
Oh, and then there's this. The hunger/food insecurity report usually appears in October. This year's version -- the fifth straight to show an increase in the number of hungry Americans -- was held for release until after last week's election.
link
Why can't people eat? Who's fault is it really? Do these hungry people have jobs? Do they have an education? There are many factors to people being hungry and most of the time it isn't the govt's fault but the hungry peoples fault.
Who said it was the gov'ts fault? This is a fact finding report and not a blame-laying one.
I would guess that some are very old, some are very poor and have several children to feed, some are in debt up to their eyeballs due to medical problems or stupid investments.
The thing about the hungry is, no matter whose fault it is that they aren't eating, it is all of our problems; because a hungry man will steal a loaf of bread before he starves to death, and a dozens loafs before his kids starve to death. Poverty and crime affect all Americans, and therefore it is something we will all have to work together to solve.
Cycloptichorn
Re: Hungry in the US? No,suffering from "very low food
Quote:This year's version -- the fifth straight to show an increase in the number of hungry Americans -- was held for release until after last week's election.
I wonder in which direction the number was going before the Bush years. If it was going down or remaining steady, maybe it
does have something to do with that pile of crap in a suit who currently resides in the white house.
Re: Hungry in the US? No,suffering from "very low food
kickycan wrote:I wonder in which direction the number was going before the Bush years. If it was going down or remaining steady, maybe it does have something to do with that pile of crap in a suit who currently resides in the white house.
No. That would merely show how much 9/11 affected the economy.
blueflame1 wrote:Food Or Medicine? Tough choices for many Seniors.
Shouldn't be any more, with the new modifications in Medicare D.
Re: Hungry in the US? No,suffering from "very low food
Cycloptichorn wrote:The thing about the hungry is, no matter whose fault it is that they aren't eating, it is all of our problems; because a hungry man will steal a loaf of bread before he starves to death, and a dozens loafs before his kids starve to death. Poverty and crime affect all Americans, and therefore it is something we will all have to work together to solve.
Hear, hear.
I'm really, REALLY curious as to why some choose A2K as a forum to continually bash the USA? Does A2K advertise in the USA Bashers forum somewhere?
I think there is a definate market for what I would call 'survival food': Yeasts and fungus which is grown and injected with vitamins. Probably it will taste like ass, but it can keep you alive for a long long time.
There comes a certain point of the equation in which the concept of providing food to all who need it becomes less expensive than the consequences of people starving to death, even if it is their own fault.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn:
Quote:The thing about the hungry is, no matter whose fault it is that they aren't eating, it is all of our problems; because a hungry man will steal a loaf of bread before he starves to death, and a dozens loafs before his kids starve to death. Poverty and crime affect all Americans, and therefore it is something we will all have to work together to solve.
I would disagree with you. People have the ability to take care of themselves. If someone isn't doing what they need to do to care for themselves and their families. I don't worry about them because I do what I need to do to care for my family. If they have time to steal, then they have time to work. If they aren't working, then they need to fix that. There are programs to help and they need to use what is there and not resort to crime. Break into my house and it will be the welfare of mine before the welfare of yours any day.
I have enough to worry about without worrying about others. Most people in bad shape with money and life are there through their own poor choices in life.
Make your bed and you have to sleep in it.
Baldimo wrote:Cycloptichorn:
Quote:The thing about the hungry is, no matter whose fault it is that they aren't eating, it is all of our problems; because a hungry man will steal a loaf of bread before he starves to death, and a dozens loafs before his kids starve to death. Poverty and crime affect all Americans, and therefore it is something we will all have to work together to solve.
I would disagree with you. People have the ability to take care of themselves. If someone isn't doing what they need to do to care for themselves and their families. I don't worry about them because I do what I need to do to care for my family. If they have time to steal, then they have time to work. If they aren't working, then they need to fix that. There are programs to help and they need to use what is there and not resort to crime. Break into my house and it will be the welfare of mine before the welfare of yours any day.
I have enough to worry about without worrying about others. Most people in bad shape with money and life are there through their own poor choices in life.
Make your bed and you have to sleep in it.
This is unrealistic.
A starving man won't just sleep in their bed, they will break into your house and steal your food before they or their kids starve to death. This is wrong, but it will happen because people won't just go quietly into the night. So it IS all of our problem; even if we didn't cause the problem, the effects affect all of us.
Quote:
I have enough to worry about without worrying about others.
Perhaps if you worried more about others, and they worried more about you, everyone would have less to deal with overall.
Cycloptichorn
When Kennedy became President, he inherited a dairy strike from Eisenhower. Working with Congress, he came up with a subsidy program, which purchased from the dairy farmers any milk products which were too high or low moisture (cheese and butter, primarily). Later, similar legislation in the Nixon administration had the government buying eggs from producers, which has lead to the dramatic rise in huge "egg farms" in the nation.
When Ronnie Ray-guns go-go economy (the one Pappy Bush accurate described as Voodoo economics) started creating armies of homeless formerly well-employed men and women, one response was to feed them the cheese, butter and eggs that had been accumlated by the Federal government, but which had always created a surplus, because the armed forces and Federal prisons couldn't use all the produce the subsidy programs purchased. This gave birth to WIC (Women, Infants and Children), which provides vouchers for milk and other basic food stuffs to people with dependent children. No one has ever solved the dairy subsidy problem. During the Reagan administration, the Agriculture Department attempted to coax dairy farmers out of business by buying herds and destroying them. However, traditional dairy farmers weren't interested in giving up their farms, and the subsidy program assured that they could at last meet expenses in years when the farm wasn't terribly profitable. What did happen, though, was that speculators would go out to auctions and buy heifers at prices significantly below the fair market price offered by the USDA, and then set up a "dairy farm" on paper, selling the newly purchase heifers, who had never produced a drop of milk, to the government at a tidy profit, and the government then destroyed the "dairy herds."
It's criminal that the richest nation on earth has people starving. All the snotty remarks for conservatives about who is at fault pale into transparent hypocricy when one looks at all the land bank and agricultural subsidy programs upon which capitalists have fattened. Hell, the current bunch even pays subsidies to the oil companies for Dog's sake. And then the rightwingnuts whine about welfare cheats and people who don't earn what they get from the government.
What did Georgie Bush, or even Pappy Bush, ever earn? In fact, Pappy Bush had it handed to him on a platter by Prescott Bush, and Georgie had it handed to him by Pappy Bush. But the right will continue to whine about people who don't "earn" what they get from the government.
nimh, quoting Salon wrote:Oh, and then there's this. The hunger/food insecurity report usually appears in October. This year's version -- the fifth straight to show an increase in the number of hungry Americans -- was held for release until after last week's election.
That's to be expected. America is at war, man, and the terrorists win if Americans go back to worrying about those petty things pre-9/11 Christians were supposed to worry about. You know, stuff like clothing the naked, feeding the hungry and all that. <shakes head together with nimh>
nimh wrote:Why can't people eat? Who's fault is it really? Do these hungry people have jobs? Do they have an education? There are many factors to people being hungry and most of the time it isn't the govt's fault but the hungry peoples fault.
These are all good questions to ask about poverty. But when it comes to hunger, that's a whole new level. When basic survival becomes difficult, it's irrelevant whose fault it is. You just put up a soup kitchen and give them something to eat, making home deliveries if you have to.
The Washington Post article Salon quotes has some more background and a non-denial denial about the Orwellian rescheduling:
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501621.html]The Washington Post[/url] wrote:
That 35 million people in this wealthy nation feel insecure about their next meal can be hard to believe, even in the highest circles. In 1999, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, then running for president, said he thought the annual USDA report -- which consistently finds his home state one of the hungriest in the nation -- was fabricated.
"I'm sure there are some people in my state who are hungry," Bush said. "I don't believe 5 percent are hungry."
Bush said he believed that the statistics were aimed at his candidacy. "Yeah, I'm surprised a report floats out of Washington when I'm running a presidential campaign," he said.
The agency usually releases the report in the fall, for reasons that "have nothing to do with politics," Nord said.
This year, when the report failed to appear in October as it usually does, Democrats accused the Bush administration of delaying its release until after the midterm elections. Nord denied the contention, saying, "This is a schedule that was set several months ago."
Very revealing, but unfortunately not very surprising.
cjhsa wrote:I'm really, REALLY curious as to why some choose A2K as a forum to continually bash the USA? Does A2K advertise in the USA Bashers forum somewhere?
We are
not bashing the USA. It's the US government we're bashing. Love the country, mistrust the government -- isn't that one of the noblest Republican traditions?
Sorry for spamming this thread with three posts in a row -- but I think I found the report on the Department of Agriculture's website. I don't really have time to read it, but other people might be interested to.
Household Food Security in the United States
Thomas must have an odd definition of spam. Agree or not, he's always worth the time spend reading.
Baldimo wrote:
I would disagree with you. People have the ability to take care of themselves. If someone isn't doing what they need to do to care for themselves and their families. I don't worry about them because I do what I need to do to care for my family. If they have time to steal, then they have time to work. If they aren't working, then they need to fix that. There are programs to help and they need to use what is there and not resort to crime. Break into my house and it will be the welfare of mine before the welfare of yours any day.
I have enough to worry about without worrying about others. Most people in bad shape with money and life are there through their own poor choices in life.
Make your bed and you have to sleep in it.
I'd like to see you use that kind of language toward the situation in Iraq.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace