Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, how many are starving?
What does "without adequate food" mean?
What the fuck else does it mean? It means people do not get adequate amount of food everyday. I dont know how else to put it to you.
There are different levels of hungry. Some food insecure people get more than others, which means some of those 1 in 6 would be starving, wouldn't they?
You people nit pick over really dumb things just for the sake of winning an argument. If you want to challenge the 1 in 6 statistic, then find stats of your own, otherwise don't bother arguing with it.
Actually, no, that's not what it means.
In THIS country, hunger is not defined as inadequate food..it's defined as skipped meals. If there are skipped meals, that's considered "hunger" in this country.
But "adequate" food means a total of around 3000 calories per child. So if kids get an average of 3000 calories, regardless of whether they are skipping meals or not, they are receiving "adequate" food. And then some.
Inadequate food leads to medical problems....failure to thrive, malnutrition and all that goes with it, and death. Our "hungry" are not suffering from starvation, except that they are just too stupid or drug addled to feed themselves.
What the fuck else does it mean? It means people do not get adequate amount of food everyday. I dont know how else to put it to you.
There are different levels of hungry. Some food insecure people get more than others, which means some of those 1 in 6 would be starving, wouldn't they?
You people nit pick over really dumb things just for the sake of winning an argument. If you want to challenge the 1 in 6 statistic, then find stats of your own, otherwise don't bother arguing with it.
Actually, no, that's not what it means.
In THIS country, hunger is not defined as inadequate food..it's defined as skipped meals. If there are skipped meals, that's considered "hunger" in this country.
But "adequate" food means a total of around 3000 calories per child. So if kids get an average of 3000 calories, regardless of whether they are skipping meals or not, they are receiving "adequate" food. And then some.
Inadequate food leads to medical problems....failure to thrive, malnutrition and all that goes with it, and death. Our "hungry" are not suffering from starvation, except that they are just too stupid or drug addled to feed themselves.
So skipping meals is not part of the "adequate food" definition. The minimum calorie requirement seems more reasonable. I skip meals all the time, my kids skipped meals all the time, they never went without " adequate food."
At least there are a few people that want to discuss facts. Thanks.
But in this country, "hunger" is defined as skipping meals. Even consistently. If you consistently skip lunch because you hate the lunch at school, you would be considered "hungry"...even if you ate 6500 calories between 4-9 pm.
It's also not just an issue of SNAP, there are program after overlapping program designed to help "the poor".
Do we have less poor people than before? Fuck no.
So I'd have to say the only real proven way to get someone out of poverty is by making them become independent and productive. How many times have we heard stories of people winning the lottery, and still ending up broke?
What could happen to you: tales of big lottery winners - U.S. News
However we have hordes of people crossing our southern border, and plenty of them manage to find jobs and some even start businesses in spite of being non-white, illiterate, with little or no english speaking skills. They were motivated to fix those problems, yet our "poor" people can't?
The reforms signed into existence during Clinton's presidency had a huge positive impact on welfare....the Jobs programs and ofset programs, geared towards getting people back into the workplace resulted in fewer people on the rolls...
But Obama pulled all that funding. His primary objective is to make as many people as possible as dependent upon the government, as quickly as possible...and to give the government control over their food supply. That's the way Marxists control the masses.
Yeah, that's it. I'm losing the argument.
The rare incidence of fraud doesn't make it a failed program. You never answered my question. What is your reform plan?
No shit. Didn't I just say that?
Lol..you don't have to explain it to me, I understand it perfectly. And as I said, "hunger in this context" means skipping meals...it is not true hunger as you are claiming.
I know the topic, I have the info. I've spoken to groups about this topic. I work with food pantries and the churches, I've belonged to groups that collected information and resources for this very purpose. And you're starting to bore me.
My reform plan is to put the programs that were working famously back in place, and reduce the amount of assistance available.
Meanwhile:
"Food Insecurity:
Food insecurity is a term defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that indicates that the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe food, or the ability to acquire such food, is limited or uncertain for a household. USDA also reports on very low food security, which occurs when one or more people in the household were hungry over the course of the year because they couldnt afford enough food."
So...if anyone in your household has been *hungry* one time in the past year, or has bought a happy meal instead of buying a ham and potatoes, then they are classified as hungry.
Wow.
If you've ever eaten a pot pie because you can't afford a turkey, you are "hungry" in this country, lol.
Anyhoo....
DC Hunger Solutions: Facts on Hunger in D.C.
I quoted it, nitwit. If you were hungry in the last year, then you were hungry over the course of the last year. It isn't saying "if you were hungry for an entire year".
This requires basic English skills, I know.
If people were really interested in feeding the hungry they would get off their fat and lazy asses and go and feed the hungry IN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES.
Instead of doing that the lazy fucks cry for more government to pay for it while they sit on their asses eating Cheetos.
Food banks are not adequate. They are not sufficient nor are they consistent. People are not as altruistic as you would like to believe. What the hungry needs is consistency. The only way to get that is through the government. And yeah, that requires tax payer money. That is the nature of paying taxes. You can't always decide where your taxes go. I pay taxes and you don't see me complaining.
Food banks aren't SUPPOSED to adequately feed whole families month after month. They are meant to prevent starvation, and that they do.
Our foodbank, run by the Lutheran church, allows you to choose a package of meat (last I walked through a package of 12 chicken thighs), chorizo, bread, fresh veggies from their garden (cukes, zucchini, and potatoes), rice, beans, juices, milk, cereals, sugar, flour, canned veggies, canned fruit. It was enough to feed a family of three, if they were very careful, for a month. But you have teh option of getting 2 baskets a month 6x a month....that on top of foodstamps is enough for any family.
What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?
47 million people are on food stamps. I don't know where this 48% is coming from.
Thanks, I got my terms confused. Still, that is a shocking number don't you think?
47 million people are on food stamps. I don't know where this 48% is coming from.
Thanks, I got my terms confused. Still, that is a shocking number don't you think?
It is shocking that after 30 years of war on the middle class, that's what you are left with, yes.
