Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Food For Thought

by The Reverend on November 17, 2009

in disinformation,economy,moral values

The richest nation in world history has a problem

About 14.6 percent of U.S. households, equal to 49.1 million people, "had difficulty obtaining food for all their members due to a lack of resources" during 2008, up 3.5 percentage points from 2007 when 11.1 percent of households were classified as food insecure.

…anti-hunger groups pointed to the huge increase from the preceding year when 36.2 million people had trouble getting enough food….

And then this adds a certain WTF quality to any discussion about Americans and food….

Depending on which study you believe, we squander between a quarter to a half of all the food we produce. Even by the conservative estimate, that adds up to more than 100 billion pounds per year.

The Department of Agriculture calculates that Americans waste 27% of their food….

96 billion pounds of food – or 27% of the 356 billion pounds of edible food available – is wasted each year in the U.S. according to the U.S, Department of Agriculture.

What's worse…..it costs us $1 billion per year to dispose of all the food we waste.

The U.S. is often referred to as the "last best hope" for the world, or something similar. If that's true, then world hope must be in decline.

A Balloon-juice blogger describes, accurately I think, how far American society has declined when it comes to our "collective" concern over issues like hunger….

It’s easy to romanticize the past, of course. But I distinctly remember that 20 years ago, things like sudden increases in the number of people going hungry were considered important issues. Nowadays to even muse about whether this is something we can do something about as a society marks you as an unserious hippie.

Briefly….over the last 30 years wealth in America has moved into the hands of fewer and fewer Americans. At the same time that more and more wealth has been accumulated by fewer and fewer Americans, taxes have been reduced to the lowest levels of my lifetime on those doing the accumulating.

Village-whore-media, since 1980, have been banging the rotted Reagan drum nightly insisting that "government is the problem." Add to that distortion the often repeated, "we just can't raise taxes on the rich, we must stay competitive" horsesh*t…..say it over and over again on national teevee…..and the results become predictable.

If all that is not bad enough….in the last 12 years or so…..conservatives in America have made a pastime out of attacking victims. Conservative coverage of Hurricane Katrina, for example, highlighted this new…"you deserve what you get", ugliness.

Most likely the significant increase in the number of Americans short on food will be used as yet another excuse to bash the poor and vulnerable and argue AGAINST any more government assistance to people in trouble. I'm sure that the argument will include variations of, "we just can't afford to spend any more money right now…..and, anyway, we're not socialists."

After all….that's what the Villagers, the Republicans and most conservatives are telling us about health care reform……aren't they?

What difference would it make to Villagers and conservatives if poor, vulnerable Americans died from malnutrition/starvation….or…lack of health insurance?

Wouldn't conservative, always-help-the-wealthiest, Americans…..and the Villagers who speak for them….tell the rest of us that if Americans aren't eating, just as they aren't buying health care insurance,…..it's their own fault because they aren't working hard enough?

Well…wouldn't they?

  • larry d.

    We've got the fattest poor people in the history of the planet, Reverend. "Trouble" putting food on the table in America means cooking instead of ordering out.

  • Da King

    My memory of the Reagan era is….a booming economy and massive job and wealth creation after the Carter stagflation was turned around.

    Only a leftwing crackpot like the Reverend could morph that into a bad thing.

  • Da King
  • http://www.cleveland.com bzzzzp

    The rest of the world is dying to get their hands on some of what we consider poverty in this country.

    How are hungry people defined? How are 'food insecure' defined?

  • Roy

    Conservatives give a far higher proportion of their income to charity than liberals. Why don't liberals help these people? Why can't liberals give some of their own money instead of telling others what to do with the money they earned?

    "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."
    http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

  • Roy

    Why don't liberals actually help anybody?

    "Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year versus $1,227).
    Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood. "
    http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080327/news_lz1e27will.html

  • Straight Outta Pripyat

    However, as a nation, we had no problem affording cigarettes, booze, lottery tickets, and adult gaming parlors.

    Basically, America has forgotten how to prioritize and buget. I am TOTALLY unmoved by the poor. I believe in natural selection and sterilization. We could clean up this country in 10 to 20 years if we let nature run its course.

  • The Reverend

    I certainly can't add anything to the predictable conservative comments thus far.

    I guess this food shortage thing doesn't exist. If it does, it's the liberals fault for not donating enough to charity.

    "food insecurity"…in wingnut world….must mean that poor Americans are unable to supersize their fast food.

  • larry d.

    Maybe if you could name some U.S. citizens who have starved to death recently, Reverend. That might help.

  • Jeff

    According to your figures there is no food shortage.

    Do you really believe that the liberals in government dont use statistics to manipulate public opinion. Take the term food insecure, it only relates to people who are unsure of where their next meal is coming from, or people who are on assistance, but then who created the need for government assistance in the first place?

    You seem to hint at the solution, but who is better able to allocate scarce (or in this case abundant but wasted) resources? Is it the government?

    Of course you wont answer these questions, or any others, just continue with your incessant and ignorant attack on the people who create jobs and wealth for this nation, and the people who expose the truth about the 70 yrs of liberal progressive politics.

  • frank

    Rev,
    You sure attract some doozies.

  • Andrea

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33975919/
    Free clinic
    'After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.
    Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens
    who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.
    …"Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.
    Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women.

    Politicians continue to tell us we are the most compassionate and caring people, and clearly we have done much good in the world. I left the event overwhelmed by the hard work and dedication of the volunteers, doctors, nurses, other medical professionals, as well as ordinary citizens who came to help. I am left with one overwhelming question: what does it say about us as a nation of people who can live in a country so rich and yet allow this to continue?

  • The Reverend

    Even I was taken aback by the comments on this particular blog post, frank.

    But I gotta' say…..this one is extra special…

    "I am TOTALLY unmoved by the poor."

  • larry d.

    Allow what to continue? The free clinic?

  • The Reverend

    Andrea….

    I saw Keith's piece the other night on the free clinics. I think the free clinic project is a great way to visually demonstrate the moral imperative right under our noses in America over health care.

    But some in opposition are immovable objects…..and I'm not just talking about the fat ones.

  • Da King

    There are people in opposition to free clinics ? Who ?

  • larry d.

    I guess Andrea is against free clinics, King. It makes sense–the free treatment those rich folks are providing to the less fortunate could make government takeover of our bodies problematic. Then we wouldn't have federal death panels telling women they shouldn't be tested for breast cancer.

  • Jeff

    Andrea, thanks for making my point, off topic as usual, but as I have said over and over again, there is not one citizen that has to go without HEALTH CARE, but forcing these same people you illustrate to buy HEALTH INSURANCE or pay a fine, or go to jail, is not the solution. It is said the 5 yrs from now the government program will cost $15,000 per person, who can afford that, enough people struggle with their bills as it is, and to strap a 2 or 3% fine (ie TAX on the 95% Barry the liar said he would not tax) would leave many of these people unable to pay the fine, and subject to jail time for TAX EVASION, nice dilemma.

    Of the 40 or so million "without" health insurance, 32 million choose not to purchase it, most of those can afford health insurance but choose to spend their money elsewhere, where is it constitutional to FORCE them do buy something they choose not too. And why are we spending 1.2 Trillion to help 8 million people who want insurance but cant afford it. One reason, and one reason only, to use this, welfare, cap and trade, the stimulus money, to collapse the system so GOVERNMENT is forced to FIX it, and when has government ever fixed anything, all we get is fewer and fewer freedoms, and bigger and more intrusive government, exactly the opposite of what our nation was founded on.

    And just who are all these greedy people making a killing in the health industry?
    Insurance companies, 3 to 4 % profits, most hospitals are cutting back just to stay open, doctors are struggling to make malpractice insurance payments, repay their loans and keep a practice open. The only people making a killing are the trial lawyers, the same people that the House health bill gives carte blanch to keep charging ridiculous contingency fees.

    And Blog of Mass Disinformation, you have yet to answer my question.

  • The Reverend

    Jeff, sometimes it's good to get it all out…..we disagree, but you boldly stated your viewpoint.

    You have several questions….

    "Do you really believe that the liberals in government dont use statistics to manipulate public opinion. Take the term food insecure, it only relates to people who are unsure of where their next meal is coming from, or people who are on assistance, but then who created the need for government assistance in the first place?

    You seem to hint at the solution, but who is better able to allocate scarce (or in this case abundant but wasted) resources? Is it the government?"

    Both sides can manipulate data….however, the CBO is non-partisan….. and both sides agree on that.

    Circumstances create the need for government assistance. Millions upon millions of people don't have it all cushy like middle classers often do today. Millions have chronic illnesses and diseases. Jobs are non-existent. Government is there to assist those who are in need. Yes, there must be limits and accountability….but we need and deserve a robust safety net.

    Finally, yes, the government is in the best position to provide that assistance. And government is not running some religious proselytizing outfit on the side.

  • Jeff

    But where are the limits and accountability?

    Again the definition of the problem is skewed to make the problem look worse than it is. With 60% of poor people listed as obese, I dont think they are missing meals, missing proper nutrition maybe, but that is a different story, that falls upon the lack of direction, both from good education, and two parent families, both major contributors to poverty itself, and government liberalism is guilty of creating both of these problems. And governmental liberalism is not invested in finding a solution, just maintaining the problem to use as campaign rhetoric.

    I am telling you the number 1 problem in this nation is corruption, political corruption, educational corruption, business corruption and corruption of the truth and information. Cure this problem and all the others take care of themselves. Both political parties are guilty, however the progressives of this nation have so hijacked education politics and the media, getting to the truth is almost impossible. And when someone reports the truth, you and the rest of the liberals cant stand it so you have to marginalize the messenger because you can not refute the message.

  • The Reverend

    I agree with you….. there is too much corruption in government. And both parties are guilty . We agree on that.

  • larry d.

    Still no word on American citizens starving to death?

  • frank

    larry d.,
    Thanks for providing the benchmark. Anyone still alive cannot be going hungry in larryworld. By the way, everyone knows your game. You challenge someone to provide a source for something they assert, then you attack the source as fraudulent and claim you have disproved the assertion.

    SOP (or is it SOB),
    Someone once said, "There but for the grace of God go you and I". I guess it wasn't you. Good luck with that karma.

  • Da King

    Rev says, "You seem to hint at the solution, but who is better able to allocate scarce (or in this case abundant but wasted) resources? Is it the government?"

    Heck no. What does the government run efficiently ? Allocation of food resources is just fine as done by the farmers and retailers. That's why we have abundance. It's because of that nasty "profit" word you hate so much. If the government was running the agricultural industry, we'd have six hour waits for bread like the Soviet Union had.

    The government already offers food stamps for the poor. That's the safety net. The last thing I'd want is for the government to interfere more in the agricultural industry. Heaven forbid.

    And I'd also like to hear your response to larry's question about how many people starve to death in America.

  • larry d.

    When have I ever asked for a source then claimed it wasn't credible, frank? I've asked you to back up some of the phoney-baloney statistics you used to post, but I don't recall you ever providing any sources. In fact, you got angry, disappeared for a while, then returned only to constantly attack my "posting style" rather than my arguments. It seems pretty weeniefied.

    As far as the other, if there's indeed a national food crisis I'd expect there'd be some starvation victims. I take it you can't find any either.

  • The Reverend

    Couple things here….

    When I said the government should run the safety net, I wasn't referring to Senators going out and plowing the fields and ladling soup. The government is the most centralized for efficiently reaching all Americans…..I don't want some hit and miss, unreliable church denomination-led program.

    And the government does subsidize, socialistically, agriculture in America.

    larry, the coldness of your comments implying that there's nothing to worry aout until people are actually falling over dead from starvation….is what frank, correctly, responded to.

    I would be curious, larry, if you have ever experienced, you know, being poor.

  • larry d.

    I'm just wondering about the scope of the hunger crisis in America that you're outlining, Reverend. How many folks are starving and who are they? Any deaths or hospitalizations?

  • frank

    larryd.,
    If you really were wondering, you'd do your own research. Perhaps you could volunteer at a food bank, or soup kitchen and break out of your insulated world. I'd bet that you would get more insight into the depth of poverty in this country than by the time you spend here. And yes, you played that game with me and others, including the Rev. I have provided sources, then you asked me how they arrived at their conclusions. When I have no knowledge of their methodology, you say that the source is invalid. When will you provide your sources?

    I continue reading even when I don't post, and I've given my reasons why I stop from time to time. Primarily, I don't have the time. But these blogs often degenerate into hyperbolic exchanges about which party is the worse, when neither is worth much. Where Republicans were once conservatives, they now violate almost all of the tenets of conservatism to spread their message of fear, and attempt to make our country the world's hegemon. The Democrats still talk of using government's power to aid people, but have long subsumed that principle to gain acceptance of wealthy contributors needed to compete with Republicans at the voter box.

  • larry d.

    Who do you think bankrolls soup kitchens and food banks, frank? Where I live a large majority of the volunteers at the food banks are conservative republicans, as well. From what I've seen here, what Democrats and more specifically you espouse has a lot more to do with jealousy and bitterness than it has to do with helping the poor.

    As for the stats I questioned, you were promulgating some phoney baloney numbers concerning "administrative costs" of medicare vs. private insurance. I simply showed how they could be phoney baloney and suggested you look at them closer. Of course those stats have proven to be phoney and I don't see that argument much anymore–they've disappeared just like you did when questioned.

    My favorite part: "But these blogs often degenerate into hyperbolic exchanges … Where Republicans were once conservatives, they now violate almost all of the tenets of conservatism to spread their message of fear, and attempt to make our country the world's hegemon."

    You're not the most self-reflective fellow, frank.

  • The Reverend

    frank touched a nerve…..didn't he?

    "From what I've seen here, what Democrats and more specifically you espouse has a lot more to do with jealousy and bitterness than it has to do with helping the poor."

    That's self-reflective? Looks like uninformed, yet condescending, characterizations, to me.

    frank…before this Ohio.com blog came into existence, I experienced the very same conservative dynamic for years on a discussion forum. There's method in the madness. The very purpose of the wild and crazy commenting by conservatives is to discourage readership. The verbal roughhousing is meant to frustrate and turn-off readers. TeaBagging….blog style….or Mob-Blog.

    These folks do not have any facts on their side…..it's all fantasy. Yet, because of Village media's encouragement, the winger-group has become a threat to the fabric of our democracy.

    I would encourage more reality-based readers out there to comment here and other places as well. Write letters to the editor of your local paper.

    The U.S. is in decline on many fronts…..these are serious times for our nation….and if citizens give in to the crazy….don't speak up and fight back, even if it's only speaking their minds on a blog comment thread….we'll all lose out to the craziest bunch of crazies ever witnessed in America.

  • larry d.

    That's funny stuff, Reverend.

  • frank

    larry d.,
    I used info that claimed Medicare admin costs were 3-4% vs private insurance at 20-30%. It came from several sources. You asked what methodology was used. When I replied that I didn't know, you claimed the figure was false and that I was using "phoney baloney" statistics. If they've been disproven, it's news to me. Perhaps you could cite YOUR sources. The disappearance is because it became a moot point when with the unfortunate death of the Medicare for all proposal.

  • larry d.

    Why be dishonest frank? It's really not worth it on an anonymous blog.

  • frank

    larry d.,
    I agree. But thanks for giving another example of your "posting style" at Da King's blog about Palin's appearance on Hannity.

  • larry d.

    Credit where credit is due, frank. Good catch and nicely played–I actually laughed out loud when I knew you had scored.

  • Da King

    The Reverend complaining about the "verbal rough-housing" and "wild and crazy comments" of conservatives ???????????????? Good god.

    Uh, Rev, You are the biggest name-caller and profanity user on these blogs, by far. There isn't even a close second place.

    Self-awareness still eludes you completely.

  • Da King

    And I assume you have no evidence of people starving in America, because you've ignored the question many times.

    Frank, I do volunteer at soup kitchens. Those are examples of people being fed, not people being starved.

  • Da King

    Might I also add, most of the soup kitchens are run by religious organizations, the kind liberals think SHOULDN'T BE FUNDED by the government due to their idiotic reinventions of the meaning of the Establishment Clause.

  • larry d.

    Frank neatly avoids those claims by whining about my "posting style," King. It's his "posting style."

  • The Reverend

    Wild commenting conservatives are not accustomed to progressives dishing it back at them.

    Long story short….conservatives refuse to accept reality. There are simply too many examples of this for me to go into it. Conservatives want to have their own set of facts on virtually everything…..Rove's "creating reality" nonsense. When I bash away at conservatives….something I most likely will continue doing….it's primarily because conservatives refuse to acknowledge empirical evidence and proven facts. That's also why I use the adorable label…wingnuts.

  • larry d.

    Still no data on Americans starving to death? Hospitalizations? How about grumbly tummies?

  • frank

    larry d.,
    Aw, just when I was going to give you a complement.

  • frank

    Mr. King,
    I applaud your volunteer work. I wish more were like you in that regard. But, surely you recognize that those you are feeding are there out of desperation.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).