Workable solutions re: feed the hungry

[Vox]

who is hungry? where?

 

[ABikerSailor]

who is hungry? where?

Actually, in this very country, 1 out of 6 children are hungry.

Are you really that oblivious that you don't see it?

 

[Sallow]

Thoughts?

Apparently, food stamps are Bad and Wrong. Minimum wage is fine as is - or maybe we should end it. There aren't enough jobs, and no training is being offered that a destitute person can afford.

In the real world, what is your solution to hunger in the USA.

Maybe there should be facilities like prisons, but only for poor people. To run such a place would likely cost more than welfare - but it is a thought. People would be fed, clothed, and sheltered, which is more security than many of them have now.

It was never the Federal Governments job to "feed" the people. Charities and local Governments can fill the need.

What part of the "General Welfare" clause don't you get?

Oh yeah..all of it.

 

[Meathead]

who is hungry? where?

Actually, in this very country, 1 out of 6 children are hungry.

Are you really that oblivious that you don't see it?

Not the sharpest tack, but we already knew that. What you're talking about is what's labelled "Low Food Security" meaning:



USDA's labels describe ranges of food security

Food Security

High food security (old label=Food security): no reported indications of food-access problems or limitations.

Marginal food security (old label=Food security): one or two reported indications--typically of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in diets or food intake.

Food Insecurity
Low food security (old label=Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.

Very low food security (old label=Food insecurity with hunger): Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.

Idiot bandying about the term hunger are insulting those who really are. Very, very few in the US could actually be called hungry, and those that are are usually suffering from mental conditions.

 

[ABikerSailor]

who is hungry? where?

Actually, in this very country, 1 out of 6 children are hungry.

Are you really that oblivious that you don't see it?

Not the sharpest tack, but we already knew that. What you're talking about is what's labelled "Low Food Security" meaning:



USDA's labels describe ranges of food security

Food Security

High food security (old label=Food security): no reported indications of food-access problems or limitations.

Marginal food security (old label=Food security): one or two reported indications--typically of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in diets or food intake.

Food Insecurity
Low food security (old label=Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.

Very low food security (old label=Food insecurity with hunger): Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.

Idiot bandying about the term hunger are insulting those who really are. Very, very few in the US could actually be called hungry, and those that are are usually suffering from mental conditions.

Might wanna check Google again, because there are 1 out of every 6 children in America who are suffering under food insecurity.

But....................we already know that the rich don't think about things like that. Yeah, to those who earn over 50,000 dollars/year, 36 bucks per month isn't that much, but to those who only make around 18,000 to 20,000 dollars/year, 36 dollars per month is a lot.

And....................if you earn less, 36 dollars is a lot more to them.

Did you know that 36 dollars can feed a family of 4 for around a week? How would YOU like to go hungry one week out of every 4 because you had your benefits cut?

And.......................the reason many Americans are obese? It's because they have to buy food that contributes to their condition (as well as diabetes, heart disease, etc.) because they don't have enough money to get healthy.

It's more expensive to eat food that keeps you healthy than it does to eat food that keeps you alive (for a shorter time), because healthy food is more expensive.

 

[Meathead]

Actually, in this very country, 1 out of 6 children are hungry.

Are you really that oblivious that you don't see it?

Not the sharpest tack, but we already knew that. What you're talking about is what's labelled "Low Food Security" meaning:



USDA's labels describe ranges of food security

Food Security

High food security (old label=Food security): no reported indications of food-access problems or limitations.

Marginal food security (old label=Food security): one or two reported indications--typically of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in diets or food intake.

Food Insecurity
Low food security (old label=Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.

Very low food security (old label=Food insecurity with hunger): Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.

Idiot bandying about the term hunger are insulting those who really are. Very, very few in the US could actually be called hungry, and those that are are usually suffering from mental conditions.

Might wanna check Google again, because there are 1 out of every 6 children in America who are suffering under food insecurity.

But....................we already know that the rich don't think about things like that. Yeah, to those who earn over 50,000 dollars/year, 36 bucks per month isn't that much, but to those who only make around 18,000 to 20,000 dollars/year, 36 dollars per month is a lot.

And....................if you earn less, 36 dollars is a lot more to them.

Did you know that 36 dollars can feed a family of 4 for around a week? How would YOU like to go hungry one week out of every 4 because you had your benefits cut?

And.......................the reason many Americans are obese? It's because they have to buy food that contributes to their condition (as well as diabetes, heart disease, etc.) because they don't have enough money to get healthy.

It's more expensive to eat food that keeps you healthy than it does to eat food that keeps you alive (for a shorter time), because healthy food is more expensive.

Food insecurity does not translate to hunger. Don't you get tired of being a hack and spouting off mindless mantra?

 

[Sallow]

Eagle, they haven't trickled down since Reagan invented the term. It's a fallacy.

There is no such thing as trickle-down economics.

good to know

what you are saying is adding more money into entitlements/food stamps will not stimulate the economy. The whole "increasing food stamps is more bang for the buck" was a flat out lie.

That's not at all the same thing, and in fact this is a non-sequitur.

 

[kwc57]

Thoughts?

Apparently, food stamps are Bad and Wrong. Minimum wage is fine as is - or maybe we should end it. There aren't enough jobs, and no training is being offered that a destitute person can afford.

In the real world, what is your solution to hunger in the USA.

Maybe there should be facilities like prisons, but only for poor people. To run such a place would likely cost more than welfare - but it is a thought. People would be fed, clothed, and sheltered, which is more security than many of them have now.

It was never the Federal Governments job to "feed" the people. Charities and local Governments can fill the need.

What part of the "General Welfare" clause don't you get?

Oh yeah..all of it.

The general welfare clause isn't the "carte blanche" clause you statists believe it to be. You might want to do a little study if you're going to continue commenting on these kind of subjects.

 

[Katzndogz]

If 1 out of 6 children are hungry, where are they? They aren't found throwing out the government mandated lunches in the schools. They aren't found rolling from McDonald's to Jack in the Box with Mom's EBT card. Where are the starving children?

They aren't starving.

 

[Katzndogz]

It was never the Federal Governments job to "feed" the people. Charities and local Governments can fill the need.

What part of the "General Welfare" clause don't you get?

Oh yeah..all of it.

The general welfare clause isn't the "carte blanche" clause you statists believe it to be. You might want to do a little study if you're going to continue commenting on these kind of subjects.

The general welfare clause applied to the STATES, it never mean that the government hands out money every month. At the formation of this nation, the people believed very strongly in the "work or starve" ideal.

 

[kwc57]

What part of the "General Welfare" clause don't you get?

Oh yeah..all of it.

The general welfare clause isn't the "carte blanche" clause you statists believe it to be. You might want to do a little study if you're going to continue commenting on these kind of subjects.

The general welfare clause applied to the STATES, it never mean that the government hands out money every month. At the formation of this nation, the people believed very strongly in the "work or starve" ideal.

Here is a good commentary on the subject from Cato.

Ron Paul on the General Welfare Clause | Cato @ Liberty

 

[FA_Q2]

Soldiers should be paid more.

As one of those soldiers (or more correctly stated: airman) – no they should not. Don’t get me wrong, it is a hell of a job but to be quite frank there is almost no other job that you can walk out of school without a diploma and right into a job that earns you over 30K a year with zero skills and zero job experience. The floor of the military pays INCREDIBLY well. It should be that way but trust me – we make plenty of cash. I would argue that the ceiling is actually ridiculously low but then again, there are reasons for that as well and I would not like to see that increased either.

A few decades ago you would be correct but the military pay tables have been corrected and now we are well paid for the tough job that we are asked to accomplish.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hunger in America today is defined by being ready to eat whatever you have a taste for.

Those going hungry in the US are rarely adults, but many children do go hungry, and yes, some of them are actually fat kids. Malnutrition is a huge problem for many young kids in the US.

And malnutrition is NOT hunger. You need to pay attention to the words that are actually used. The malnutrition you refer to is eating incorrectly but has absolutely no connection with hunger as the food is there.

Honestly, SNAP does nothing but exacerbate this problem anyway. It gives cash to those that are much more likely to make poor decisions (as most people that require this support do so precisely because they have made poor decisions). If we were really concerned about hunger and nutrition then we would be providing those families with FOOD and not cash. The WIC program exemplifies exactly how SNAP should be ran rather than the farce that it is. No cash whatsoever but actual food and not food that you want or is convenient but food that is healthy, period.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

who is hungry? where?

Actually, in this very country, 1 out of 6 children are hungry.

Are you really that oblivious that you don't see it?

Not true. The statistic you are talking about refers to a made up statistic called food security. In other words, 1 in 6 children live in a house where they, at some point during the year, had no food in the house.

USDA ERS - Food Security in the U.S.: Definitions of Food Security

That is not hunger, despite your attempt to scare the bejesus out of everyone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thoughts?

Apparently, food stamps are Bad and Wrong. Minimum wage is fine as is - or maybe we should end it. There aren't enough jobs, and no training is being offered that a destitute person can afford.

In the real world, what is your solution to hunger in the USA.

Maybe there should be facilities like prisons, but only for poor people. To run such a place would likely cost more than welfare - but it is a thought. People would be fed, clothed, and sheltered, which is more security than many of them have now.

It was never the Federal Governments job to "feed" the people. Charities and local Governments can fill the need.

What part of the "General Welfare" clause don't you get?

Oh yeah..all of it.

Can you explain it to us idiots? What it refers to, and how it is interpreted by the courts?

If you can't, you are the one that doesn't actually understand it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, in this very country, 1 out of 6 children are hungry.

Are you really that oblivious that you don't see it?

Not the sharpest tack, but we already knew that. What you're talking about is what's labelled "Low Food Security" meaning:



USDA's labels describe ranges of food security

Food Security

High food security (old label=Food security): no reported indications of food-access problems or limitations.

Marginal food security (old label=Food security): one or two reported indications--typically of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in diets or food intake.

Food Insecurity
Low food security (old label=Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.

Very low food security (old label=Food insecurity with hunger): Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.

Idiot bandying about the term hunger are insulting those who really are. Very, very few in the US could actually be called hungry, and those that are are usually suffering from mental conditions.

Might wanna check Google again, because there are 1 out of every 6 children in America who are suffering under food insecurity.

But....................we already know that the rich don't think about things like that. Yeah, to those who earn over 50,000 dollars/year, 36 bucks per month isn't that much, but to those who only make around 18,000 to 20,000 dollars/year, 36 dollars per month is a lot.

And....................if you earn less, 36 dollars is a lot more to them.

Did you know that 36 dollars can feed a family of 4 for around a week? How would YOU like to go hungry one week out of every 4 because you had your benefits cut?

And.......................the reason many Americans are obese? It's because they have to buy food that contributes to their condition (as well as diabetes, heart disease, etc.) because they don't have enough money to get healthy.

It's more expensive to eat food that keeps you healthy than it does to eat food that keeps you alive (for a shorter time), because healthy food is more expensive.

The USDA says that 90% of the people in the US are food secure. Google tells you that 17% of the children in the US are food insecure.

Which do you want me to believe?

 

[syrenn]

how about this for a workable solution to hunger....

rice, pasta, beans, cheese, eggs, milk, flour, fruit and veggies....is all you get on food stamps.... as much as you want but that's all you get.

no one will starve....

 

[FA_Q2]

how about this for a workable solution to hunger....

rice, pasta, beans, cheese, eggs, milk, flour, fruit and veggies....is all you get on food stamps.... as much as you want but that's all you get.

no one will starve....

Perfectly agreeable. Food – if that’s what they need then that is what we can give them.

I think we would be pleasantly surprised at the number of people that suddenly did not need food stamps anymore though

 

[syrenn]

how about this for a workable solution to hunger....

rice, pasta, beans, cheese, eggs, milk, flour, fruit and veggies....is all you get on food stamps.... as much as you want but that's all you get.

no one will starve....

Perfectly agreeable. Food – if that’s what they need then that is what we can give them.

I think we would be pleasantly surprised at the number of people that suddenly did not need food stamps anymore though

amazing.... its not about food or hunger... its about desire and want.....

 

[PixieStix]

Thoughts?

Apparently, food stamps are Bad and Wrong. Minimum wage is fine as is - or maybe we should end it. There aren't enough jobs, and no training is being offered that a destitute person can afford.

In the real world, what is your solution to hunger in the USA.

Maybe there should be facilities like prisons, but only for poor people. To run such a place would likely cost more than welfare - but it is a thought. People would be fed, clothed, and sheltered, which is more security than many of them have now.

Are you serious. You want to bring back poor houses?

Liberals love to create situations that make them look good when people start to lose stuff.

I think they call that drama queening. Make em feel all warm and fuzzy inside.