17m US families too poor to eat

Any level of poverty where people go hungry is wrong.. whether that is 1 or a million.. I know my cousins in the US spend some of their time working in food kitchens to help those who do not have enough, they also help each other through this mess we are all in..

The sad fact is that the corporate mentality is not the community driven one it was 50 years ago, regardless of how people want to see it, we do live in a new world order where high streets (main street) shops are the same faceless greyness that invest nothing back into the communities that help them grow..

The divides between the have and have nots is growing.. those elite remind me of the same elites that survived on another kind of slavery and bondage that has never had a colour bar.. Take the de Warenne family where I live in Sussex, they are calculated as the second richest family in Britain in the last 1,000 years.. and that wealth was built on the servitude and bondage of the serfs under them.. so what has changed in the last 1,000 years.. the elite still control, and we still live in the same debt servitude to them.

As for Swine flu being a depopulation plan by the elite.. to be honest (as sad as a single death is) the black death worked against the elite.. it gave power back to the people.. the poor had leverage over the rich land owners.. so I really don't go with the PTB planning any kind of depopulation, since it would put them at a disadvantage.

It would be better for the to increase the number of citizens via immigration, we you can see this evidenced in the US and UK for instance.. the higher the numbers if citizens the fewer the job opportunities, and the higher levels of mass debt servitude makes it easier it is to drive down the standard of living of the poor..

To turn a phrase on the Black Death, "as the poor got fewer, the rest got richer" and the reverse is also true, as the poor grow in number the rest get poorer, which is what I feel is happening today.

All the while the PTB need mass distraction to keep the serfs occupied, which you see with the way the elite controlled MSM bounces from economic meltdown, to Iran, to swine flu etc. while they don't stick with a single topic long enough so you can fully form an opinion and take action.. the lack of any form of real action on these issues is rather telling don't you think!

If anything I see the number of poor starving serfs growing, along with the poor becoming poorer, since that is actually the best way for the elite to control us. But the balance needs to be on that line of just enough to survive, since while you are focused on simply surviving you do not have the time or energy to rebel..

So I can not help but see us all as the same serfs as those who served the likes of the de Warenne family 900 years ago.. and a sad fact would be that some form of depopulation is the one of the few ways to readdress this situation.. and it saddens me to think this way.



[edit on 17/11/09 by thoughtsfull]

I think that number is a gross overestimate. I don't hear or read about anyone dying due to starvation here in the US...I'm certain that it happens, but if roughly 6% of the US population were too poor to eat, we would have morgues stacked w/emaciated corpses.

Just my 2-cents

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I think that number is a gross overestimate. I don't hear or read about anyone dying due to starvation here in the US...I'm certain that it happens, but if roughly 6% of the US population were too poor to eat, we would have morgues stacked w/emaciated corpses.

Just my 2-cents

Those people mentioned aren't dying from starvation, they are hungry from time to time. As the economy crumbles, the number of people losing their homes and without money for needed food will certainly rise.

There should be no hungry children in a nation, which spends 51% of the federal income tax to finance wars and gives trillions to banksters.

The Washington Post today published an article, which provided a bit more information.

The data show that dependable access to adequate food has especially deteriorated among families with children. In 2008, nearly 17 million children, or 22.5 percent, lived in households in which food at times was scarce -- 4 million children more than the year before. And the number of youngsters who sometimes were outright hungry rose from nearly 700,000 to almost 1.1 million.

Among Americans of all ages, more than 16 percent -- or 49 million people -- sometimes ran short of nutritious food, compared with about 12 percent the year before. The deterioration in access to food during 2008 among both children and adults far eclipses that of any other single year in the report's history.

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
Those people mentioned aren't dying from starvation, they are hungry from time to time.

I agree that no child should go malnourished...and that's why I consistently contribute to food banks.

However, going hungry is not necessarily a bad thing. Hell, obese people go hungry sometimes, but that doesn't make it a crisis...more like a blessing in their cases. You want to see starvation see Ethiopia...want to see someone going hungry see the order line at McDonalds. When the US doesn't lead the world by leaps and bounds in the obesity department, then we may have a crisis on our hands...but hungry is that even a medical diagnosis...

Dr. to patient: "well, I regret to tell you, you are suffering from an acute case of hunger"

Yeah,
It's hard for a 12 year old to concentrate on x-box while talking on his cell about the new 120 dollar sneakers he got for his birthday when his mom made him eat generic cereal for breakfast.

This is a load.

Food stamps.

Almost all of these folks are eligible.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Of cause, when compared to Ethiopia, the problems in America are small. But Ethiopia has a GDP/capita 183$$, the USA 44.000$$ (Dates from 2006).

Refering to a greater problem somewhere else in the world doesn't mean, that malnutrition is no problem in the USA. Longer lines before food banks, more foreclosures, more homeless, more people without health coverage are real problems effecting the Western world.
Meanwhile the already obscene rich become even richer and the middle class is eroding.

The obesity you mentioned is also a problem, mainly effecting the poor. It is quicker and easier to buy cheap instant junk food, than cooking a healthy meal. Many of the working-poor have 2 or 3 jobs. They often simply have not enough time to lead a healthy life. Not long, and they become accustomed to the crappy food and the flavor enhancers it contains.

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

Of cause, when compared to Ethiopia, the problems in America are small. But Ethiopia has a GDP/capita 183$$, the USA 44.000$$ (Dates from 2006).

Refering to a greater problem somewhere else in the world doesn't mean, that malnutrition is no problem in the USA. Longer lines before food banks, more foreclosures, more homeless, more people without health coverage are real problems effecting the Western world.
Meanwhile the already obscene rich become even richer and the middle class is eroding.

The obesity you mentioned is also a problem, mainly effecting the poor. It is quicker and easier to buy cheap instant junk food, than cooking a healthy meal. Many of the working-poor have 2 or 3 jobs. They often simply have not enough time to lead a healthy life. Not long, and they become accustomed to the crappy food and the flavor enhancers it contains.

I agree with everything you said. However, the title 17m families too poor to eat...I must call BS. maybe too poor to be properly nourished, but not hungry. AND that has been an increasing epidemic for decades. I agree with the poster above...kids are too busy playing x-box while talking on their cell phones...

So, what's the solution? Give up your creature comforts if you need food...I know, the poor don't have any comforts to give up, right? Wrong, most of them have cable TV, their "hooptie" vehicle w/expensive 20-inch rims, outrageously priced sneakers and name brand clothing...those are all things they can sacrifice. Not to mention food banks, food stamps, shelters and the shameless panhandling.

I do not take this issue lightly; however, I'm merely calling BS to the OP's source...As I stated in my original post, that number is hyper-inflated and is no doubt propaganda for someone's political agenda.

Originally posted by christianpatrick
Two eggs, 10 cents each, with two slices of toast, nickel a slice, 30 cents for breakfast. Package of raman noodles 15 cents with 1/4 of a pound package of mixed vegetables 25 cents, 40 cents for lunch. Two potatoes at 10 cents each, two frankfurters, 11 cents each, another 1/4 pound of mixed vegetables, 67 cents for supper. 67+40+30, $1.37 and sales tax for a days worth of food.

I was stuck without money for a while in 1991 and had a budget of 50 cents per day to spend on food. I could not, therefore, afford myself the delicacies you just described (yummy!), but I did survive. Oatmeal is not caviar, but it will do in a pinch. Sourcing protein is harder, but doable.

Fast forward to present day... I see people buying foods which I consider borderline luxury, with their foodstamps -- all the time.

I call the OP bovine dejecta.

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by semperfortis

 

Why is America giving aid to anyone else when it needs to give aid to its own people?

The same can be said of here in NZ and probably other countries.

Look after your own first - surely that is obvious?

You probably don't know this, but in US the entitlement programs are consuming most of the budget and compared to them, foreign aid isn't even on the radar screen.

Pity I missed this conversation last night, due to the time delay from the states you miss out on conversations in real time.

What I find interesting is the definition of poor and starving.

I know here in Australia, many of my friends and family have cut back on certain foods and certain things due to the uncertainty - although we are certainly not poor. Many people are doing without to make ends meet.

I feel for you guys in the states. Looks like a lot of people are doing it tough. Something has to happen soon to restore the balance.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by dingleberry77

 

That being said, America is a country where the average family has 2 cars and 4 TVs. They also have cable TV and cell phones. There are some basic choices that folks are making and those choices don't include cutting out those discretionary items that they want.

I do not know anyone who has 4 tvs. I don't know very many people with 2 cars. I do not know where you get your generalization of the American family.

These days a phone of some kind is necessary for job hunting, etc. How is someone supposed to call you for an interview if you have no phone? Landlines often cost more than cellular, so a lot of people are scrapping landlines in favor of cell phones.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I've been there too. In the 70's. Worse. I ate at soup kitchens. And at the moonies. Not a penny in my pocket. I got laid off from my job so they couldn't deny me unemployment, moved to another state to look for work, but didn't realize that the unemployment wouldn't automatically follow me. It took 6 weeks for them to get their act together. I don't know how I lived. By the time it came through, I had already found a job and they paid me the back unemployment, but about three weeks were hard.

In my example, I was trying to make it balanced. But one package of raman noodles, cooked till the water is all soaked up and one egg for early lunch, same for a later supper. (15 cents plus 10 cents)x2 equals 50 cents a day. Better than oatmeal. Two eggs a day supply all the protein you need.


I eat a lot of raman noodles. I like asian food and one package of noodles, any kind of vegetables that I might have in the house and one egg if nothing else equals chop suey. I'm lazy and don't like to cook or clean up. One pan and one dish. Or eat out of the pan.