Skip to comments.Report: More Americans going hungry (But It's Okay)
Posted on 11/16/2009 3:55:22 PM PST by Libloather
Report: More Americans going hungry
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 16, 2009; 3:14 PM
The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million, the largest number since the government has been keeping track, according to a federal report released Monday that shows particularly steep increases in food scarcity among families with children.
In 2008, the report found, nearly 17 million children -- more than one in five across the United States -- were living in households in which food at times ran short, up from slightly more than 12 million youngsters the year before. And the number of children who sometimes were outright hungry rose from nearly 700,000 to almost 1.1 million.
Among people of all ages, nearly 15 percent last year did not consistently have adequate food, compared with about 11 percent in 2007, the greatest deterioration in access to food during a single year in the history of the report.
Taken together, the findings provide the latest glimpse into the toll that the weak economy has taken on the well-being of the nation's residents. The findings are from a snapshot of food in America that the U.S. Agriculture Department has issued every year since 1995, based on Census Bureau surveys. It documents both Americans who are scrounging for adequate food -- people living with some amount of "food insecurity" in the lexicon of experts -- and those whose food shortages are so severe that they are hungry.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
RUSH: "More Americans are Going Hungry," the Washington Post. Of course this is Obama's America. "The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food..." Have you ever heard it written that way? It's like, "who lack access to affordable health care," "who look access to affordable health insurance." This is Amy Goldstein writing for the State-Controlled Washington Post. "The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million. That's the largest number since the governments has been keeping track, according to a government report released today that shows particularly steep increases in food scarcity among families with children." Wait a minute. Wait just a second. "Steep increases in food scarcity among families with children"?
Does that mean when families with children go to the grocery store the food hides? Food is scarce, particularly among families with children? How does the food know? How does the food know when to get scarce? Do you realize how nonsensically that's written? "Among people of all ages, nearly 15% last year did not consistently have adequate food," of course, that's not defined, "compared with about 11% in 2007 who did not have adequate food the greatest deterioration in access to food during a single year in the..." How can this be with all of the food stamps, all of the millions and millions and millions, tens of millions of Americans who get food stamps? How can food hide itself? How does the food get scarce?
When I go in to buy food -- well, I don't actually go in to buy food but when I send people in to buy food -- they never come home and say, "There wasn't any. It was scarce." Now when they come home and say, "Hey, by the way, I was able to get all the food you sent me out for," I'm going to say, "Good, because the food knows I don't have a family! The food knows I don't have any kids." The food only gets scarce among families with children. What the hell does this mean? This is a takeoff on the old template, "News Story: Women and Children Hardest Hit," or "Women and Minorities Hardest Hit." Just imagine... Just imagine the outrage if these numbers have been reported while Bush or Reagan were president.
Remember, when Reagan was president, they had him sneaking across the street to the park and stealing the homeless's cans of pork and beans and taking them back to the White House and opening them up and eating them and rubbing his stomach saying, "Ahhhh, I'm happy the homeless are going hungry!" They actually caricatured Reagan that way. But because it's Obama, if you read the whole story, the Washington Post treats us to all the plans Obama's working on to end hunger. Ah! Sorry. "Access to food." See, access to food in this story is not even defined as hunger. It just says people can't get it. See, we got a Democrat in power no so this problem, "Oh, so horrible, but we got a guy working! Obama is working on access to food, improving it for every morning."
However, they do manage to continue the propping up of the president who doesn't have a clue about economic policies that actually lift people out of poverty rather than doom 'em to eternal dependence on Obama bucks, which is what this is all about. There are ways to lift people out of poverty. Obama doesn't know them, or if he does know how to do them he doesn't want to do them. I think this is what he wants -- I've said this over and over -- eternal dependence. He wants as much dependence on the part of as many Americans as possible, the theory being that this will create a Democrat Party in power in perpetuity. It documents here this report, Census Bureau, "both Americans who are scrounging for adequate food and people living with some amount of food insecurity." Have you ever heard that term, "food insecurity"? Anyway, they have big time charts and graphs, if you want to see them.
#1 Priority: Nationalize Healthcare in 2013.
When I was in college, I learned there’s always a church potluck going on some place.
"Of all the aspects of Americas obesity epidemic, perhaps the most troubling is the prevalence of obesity among one of the most vulnerable segments of our society: the poor. Statistics show that low-income individuals are significantly more likely to be overweight or obese than those who are financially well-to-do."
That picture of Obama hanging over his food drives me crazy. Didn’t his mother or grandmother ever tell him you bring the spoon to your mouth, not your mouth to the dish. His table manners are embarrassing.
If we’re all obese as suggested this must be a good thing. Perhaps destroying the economy is an attempt to decrease obesity.
I guess the obesity epidemic is over now?
“Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million...”
They can eat those ‘green shoots’ Obama promised.
I wouldn’t worry, the food still tastes the same.
Rwanda. Darfur. Burundi.
Whiney mutts here need a talkin’ to.
I'd bet $100 that most of those supposedly going hungry voted for 0bama - several times - and if they have a problem, they need to speak to him.
As the basic economy falters with unemployment the less donations to these potlucks. King Obama is a fool and has literally destroyed our economy and it will continue to get worse. He doesn't give a damn about people suffering. Rather spend millions buying votes to stay in power.
This week ....More people are going hungry.
Last Week...Obesity on the rise.
Next week...Food shortages.
Next month....poor people gaining weight even though there is a food shortage.
Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million...
Apparently this stat comes from answers to how many days in a month one’s refrigerator is not full, or something like that.
Everyone who eats routinely at McDonald’s is counted in this category, of “lacking a dependable food supply.”
there’s a slimy supermarket on my block. About 80% of the people that buy food there does so with food stamps.
I then will watch these same slugs pull out cash to buy cigarettes and lottery tickets.
I think they got the numbers from the same a$$hat that came up with the “jobs saved or created” numbers...
I live in and near small towns in a cornfield in Indiana.
Only businesses in town are gas stations/convenience stores.
Often see young mothers with one babe in arms, 2 or more in tow, buying $15-20 worth of junk food, individual single serve packages of chips, cookies, chocolate milk, etc.
They don’t know how to wipe the kids noses, but they sure know how to swipe that card.
Here are the questions used to determine whether respondents are food secure or food insecure. Make up your own mind as to whether these answers translate into the crisis implied.
1. We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more. Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
2. The food that we bought just didnt last and we didnt have money to get more. Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
3. We couldnt afford to eat balanced meals. Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasnt enough money for food? (Yes/No)
5. (If yes to question 4) How often did this happenalmost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasnt enough money for food? (Yes/No)
7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didnt eat, because there wasnt enough money for food? (Yes/No)
8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasnt enough money for food? (Yes/No)
9. In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole day because there wasnt enough money for food? (Yes/No)
10. (If yes to question 9) How often did this happenalmost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
I drive by Woodfield mall once in awhile. The parking lot is still pretty full, and Christmas shopping hasn't started.
I know a couple, no kids, who get $400 a month in food stamps. My budget for 2 people is about half of that.
The author is a LIAR!!!
What bugs me is when I see a tattooed drug addicted teenage mom wearing pajamas go into a quickimart gas station and buy groceries there with a foodstamp card.
It costs twice as much there.
HEY! Don't insult my GRITS! (Just think of them as liquid popcorn.)
... liquid popcorn ...
There’s been times when we had a lot of month left at the end of the money, but we have always had some canned goods on the shelf and stuff in the freezer.
That said, many moms aren’t home to teach the kids how to cook cheap stuff, or they don’t have a clue. And schools have cut home ec programs. Our middle school has a fabulous kitchen that goes unused.
If yes to any of the above questions, answer the questions below. During the months that you had difficulty paying for food...
11. Did you spend money on cigarettes or other tobacco products?
12. Did you spend money on alcoholic beverages?
13. Did you spend money on crack?
14. Did you spend money on lotto tickets?
15. Did you spend money on cable TV?
16. Did you spend money on mobile phone(s)?
17. Did you spend money on professional sex workers?
18. Was any member of your household obese?
If you answered yes to question 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18, please reorganize your priorities.
Excellent follow-up questions!
If they are fed Yankee grits, you would be right.
Howsomever, if they are fed Southren grits, you would be wrong, particularly if they are Southren cheese grits!
We must all remember that the questions and expected (allowed) responses are phrased such that they reinforce the notion that the bureaucracy funding the program can demonstrate a compelling and continuing need for more funding.
After all, the bureaucrats need the jobs and the GS promotions!
E.g., increasing numbers of hungry folks (particularly children) inevitably creates more “programs” and more food welfare warriors must be hired and promoted.
The bureaucrats really don’t give a sh!t about the people receiving whatever government alms are being passed out.
Excellent! Although it hardly surprises me that FReepers are smarter than USDA bureaucrats.