http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0....html#comments

It says Food Insecurity, but basically what it means is people who can't feed themselves due to empty food pantries, food stamps that don't cover the cost of food and very low incomes.

Romney and Ryan are both calling for cuts in the food stamps program as a way of reducing our debt, while calling for large tax cuts for the wealthy and increased military spending. I just wonder where their priorities are?

I think its easy to say that if you are a wealthy person, you have a huge disconnect of what it is like to be a person where lack of money is a major factor in day to day living.

I've worked for $2.13 an hour. I know what it is like to work and still have no money at the end of the day it seems like. I don't think either Romney or Ryan understand this, particularly since Ryan wants America to turn into an economic darwinism as a model for life in America.

I wish they read up more on the French Revolution, than on ideals that led to the French revolution.

Now I expect someone to blame Obama for this mess. THe last time food was this scarce for a large amount of poor people was when the food stamp program was created, the Great Depression. Eliminating or cutting the program is clearly not the answer to the problem since the program was designed to combat the problem. I think ROmney/Ryan will make the situation much worse before it gets better.

Dwight D Eisenhower summed up the Romney/Ryan plan of increases in spending on the military while cutting social programs with this quote from several generations ago.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower

meanwhile, we have an obesity problem.

I got it. We eat the obese people.

Poverty at 49.1 million not counting medical expenses.

http://news.yahoo.com/revised-govt-f...135427317.html

Policy Y is "designed to combat" problem X.

Problem X remains and is getting worse despite policy Y being in place.

Now is not the time to modify policy Y if anything it should be increased.

Well I don't think Obama has the same priorities that Romney has. Romney chalks up people who require assistance and not supporting his massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans as simply envy. Any suggestion at raising taxes on the wealthy is quickly derided as class warfare and socialism.

He calls for smaller government as in less spending on basic social safety net programs, but wants to expand our bloated military budget even more than it is already.

He has a different set of priorities than Obama, hence why they are running on two entirely different political platform. Romney's platform is favorable to people who are similar to Romney, I.E. Wealthy. Obama's platform is more directly beneficial to people who are lower class, middle class, and impoverished. If you aren't wealthy you have no business voting for Romney, unless you don't think or vote in your own self-interest.

I do agree that there is class warfare in this country going on though, its the wealthy waging it on the rest of us. I think if starvation continues to grow and reaches a certain point, a French Revolution style civil war will occur in in the United States as the rule of law falls apart when there is masses of impoverished people in the country that was use to a middle class standard of living and no problem finding work at a decent wage.

You'd have to be a really healthy eater to be starving on food stamps.

It's called government cheese for a reason. Food stamp eaters don't have a lot of choice in how healthy their peanut butter is.

[QUOTE=JimmyS1985;34677096
I do agree that there is class warfare in this country going on though, its the wealthy waging it on the rest of us. I think if starvation continues to grow and reaches a certain point, a French Revolution style civil war will occur in in the United States as the rule of law falls apart when there is masses of impoverished people in the country that was use to a middle class standard of living and no problem finding work at a decent wage.[/QUOTE]

This is maybe my biggest problem with obama....he is the most decisive President maybe ever, hell all his rich vs poor talk even makes me look at someone driving a lambo these days with not so much envy...but a twinge of anger....although only for a second before I remember this is what he wants....us to hate the rich, not admire their wealthy. Oh and there is that fact everything he said he would do he did not....Gitmo..wars..transparency (maybe the biggest lol of them all) cut deficit..reign in wall st..Romney has not proven for the last 4 years he is an outright different person than the one seeking election....again I am no Romney fan....but obama is literally driving people away from the country. These new Democrats have zero in common with the Clinton era ones...and frankly scares me how they ALL stepped right in line with whatever obama wanted no matter how far off base...my 2 cents before Snookie comes and erases more of my posts and threads. As for my DG post, that was my mistake....I thought this was a blog site, but there is as much politics here (see snookies attacks on conservative posters vs obama ) as in congress.....

you can say that... but i think you are going to have a harder problems trying to convincing peoples of what you saying... obama is a divisive man no doubtfully though yes..

So can someone be starving and obese at the same time? Like, I only get one meal a day so I am not fulfilled and thus starving, even if that one meal is 3000 calories?

The wealthy are the wealthiest they have been since the 1920's or in about 90 years, almost a full century. THe poor in this country are the poorest they have been since the 1960's or just prior to the war on Poverty, although there definitely isn't as many poor people today as there was in the 1930's.

Your initial reaction to someone driving a car worth more than a house isn't really a bad feeling. Most people have a negative connotation with the word "Robber Baron" Robber Baron's were people in the early 1900's and late 1800's that had amassed enormous amounts of wealth from dubious business practices. Today's billionaires, some have accumulated similar amounts of wealth as the old Robber Baron's also through dubious business practices. For example the Walton's is probably the richest family in the world, even wealthier than the Saudi Royal family and they did it through the retail market and an enormous chain of stores. Around half of their employees live on food stamps and Medicaid. Do you see something wrong with that situation?

There is something inherently wrong with the tax structure when capital gains, which is a form of wealth, is taxed at a lower percentage, than wages for work are. Work is the primary source of income for the middle class and poor. Capital gains is the primary source of income and wealth for the wealthy. As it sits now we honor wealth and capital gains, more than work.

Romney is running on keeping capital gains taxes low, more tax cuts for the wealthy (who also get the largest percentage decrease from his tax cut) and Obama is running on a platform that requires everyone who makes more than $1 million in a year, to pony up 30% of their new found wealth and income in taxes.

As far as I can tell, what tax cuts for the wealthy accomplishes not more job creation and lower prices from products through increases in supply (supply side economics). It causes wages to be depressed, increases in poverty, large increases in national debt. The only people who seem to benefit from large tax cuts for the largest wealth holders in this country are in fact the wealthy, rather than anyone else.

Poverty is on the rise in the U.S. Starvation is not. Many in line at food banks are obese.

[ ] reality

Supermarkets and food service stores throw a disgusting amount of food away that could easily be put in community food banks, refreshed daily nationwide. But they want to avoid lawsuits and moochers while not caring so they won't.

Obesity can be a form of malnutritition. Ive put on some pounds since I took up drinking alcohol. Alcohol in its basic form is entirely devoid of nutrition and composed entirely of empty calories. There is no nutrition in Vodka for example even though it can make you fat.

Impoverished people are more prone to being fat from lower quality diets but this can still bring about enormous health problems even if they don't die directly from lack of food.

While maybe this country could stand to lose a few pounds, I don't think malnutrition or starvation is a good way to live in this country.

I'm fairly certain this thread is going to be hilarious because of how little people know about nutrition.

It's really quite astonishing how much ignorance there is on this issue. Damn poor people eating all our food at getting fat...oh wait.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/...nger_facts.htm
I'm sure these hunger statistics will be hand-waved away by many, but the truth is that food insecurity is a serious problem in this country. The Romney-Ryan plan would significantly cut food stamps, millions of which go to poor children.

Oh yeah, another thing the hardcore laissez-faire capitalists love to hand-wave away. If you took all the food in the world and distributed it equally, not a single person would go hungry. Not. One. Person.

starving = not enough calories

when i am in checkout isle i notice how few people are buying veggies. it's not just cause they are expensive. it's cause donuts and chicks taste better. if they start subsidizing veggies it will be interesting but i doubt there will be much of a change.

I mean, these people are so extreme that one of their primary groups, the Catholic Church (of which Paul Ryan is a member) has come out directly opposed to his budget which slashes the safety net for impoverished American adults and children:

http://datinggod.org/2012/08/11/us-b...ls-moral-test/

Oh please. Get this crap out of here. You are either a liar or a manipulator. Please choose one. I am going to refute every single one of your assertions OP with the USDA definitions. I swear every OP you produce is to force me to vote for Romney over Obama. I swear you are a Romney double-agent. Honestly.

One. Food insecurity =/= Starvation. Your OP title is misleading and a lie.Food insecurity: Food insecurity is limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways

Two. Defintions.
Notice marginal - very low are all food insecure. Yet, still they are not starving.
“The food security status of each household lies somewhere along a continuum extending from high food security to very low food security. This continuum is divided into four ranges, characterized as follows:
 High food security —Households had no problems, or anxiety about, consistently accessing adequate food.
 Marginal food security —Households had problems at times, or anxiety about,
accessing adequate food, but the quality, variety, and quantity of their food intake were not substantially reduced.
 Low food security —Households reduced the quality, variety, and desirability of their diets, but the quantity of food intake and normal eating patterns were not substantially disrupted.
 Very low food security —At times during the year, eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake reduced because the
household lacked money and other resources for food.

Three: Notice these bull**** questions the USDA asks to get you into one of the "food insecure" levels:

 Least severe:
Was this statement often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
"We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more."
 Somewhat more severe:
Was this statement often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
"We couldn't afford to eat balanced meals."
 Midrange severity:
In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food?
 Most severe:
In the last 12 months, did you ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't
enough money for food?
In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't enough money for food?

Food Insecure. Households that report three or more conditions that indicate food insecurity are classified as "food insecure." The three least severe conditions that would result in a household being classified as food insecure are:
o They worried whether their food would run out before they got money to
buy more.
o The food they bought didn't last, and they didn't have money to get more.
o They couldn't afford to eat balanced meals.
o Households are also classified as food insecure if they report any
combination of three or more conditions, including any more severe
conditions.

----------------------------------------------------
Notice how none of the above relate to starving. They are simple questions that get asked and honestly a lot people can answer in the affirmative. We do not have a starvation problem in this country. We do not. Oh nooeeeeees I have to wait until food stamp/welfare/paycheck day to get more food. Just like every other person in the world. Oh noeeeessss cannot eat double servings. Oh nooeeeesssss what's the defintion of socially acceptable????

Please revise your thread title to the following: "Government defined food insecurity (defintions inside) on the rise in the United States"

In conclusion:

I do not want to see SNAP benefits cut. I believe they are much better than the infamous "bread lines" of the 1920's. But I also believe certain government departments have an ulterior motive. As they change the defintion of what is "poor" or "poverty" of "food insecure" it does not show how far we have come in 50 years in battling poverty and hunger. To equate starvation, hunger and poverty with the 1920's in what you are doing OP is disingenuous and wrong. It is unfortunate that some cannot go to Whole Foods and buy $300/organic food a week. But just because they have to go to Walmart doesn't mean they are starving. And just because they have to budget Food Stamps doesn't mean they are "afraid when their next meal will come".

I will leave my soapbox.

And please stop with the whole French Revolution bull****. This isn't 1700's France.

As the last three posts show, JimmyS is an underrated troll.

Price of a box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes
[1982] 18 oz, $1.25
[1983] 18 oz, 99 cents
[1985] 18 oz, $1.09
[1987] 24 oz, $1.99
[1990] 18 oz, $1.99
[1993] 18 oz, $1.29
[1997] 18oz, $2.59
[2000] 18 oz, $2.99
[2004] 12 oz, $2.99
[2012]12 oz., $3.79

Wages: