Banned
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intense1
My post has to do with the statements made about hunger in the US - I am amazed that anyone would say that there is true "hunger" in the US, true hunger meaning there is no access to services or ministries that would alleviate an actual physical hunger.........
......In these years I have been privileged to walk amongst such children, never have I seen a "fat" kid, a child who obviously and truly had enough to eat. Not like most all American kids I have seen, even in the most impoverished of American kids.
So don't say that there is true "hunger" here in America - there are services available, and failing that, there are ministries who will care for these kids. In other countries, there is nothing - no government, no services, no ministries.
These kids are truly "hungry".
Americans need to pull their heads out of their asses and see what is going on in the world, and not just think the sun rises and sets on them.
And I am an American.
|
Please read the following article and tell me that you don't sound remarkably similar to candidate Bush during his first presidential campaign:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111501621.html
Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry
By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 16, 2006; A01
The U.S. government has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again. But they may experience "very low food security."
Every year, the Agriculture Department issues a report that measures Americans' access to food, and it has consistently used the word "hunger" to describe those who can least afford to put food on the table. But not this year.
Mark Nord, the lead author of the report, said "hungry" is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured in the food security survey." Nord, a USDA sociologist, said, "We don't have a measure of that condition."
The USDA said that 12 percent of Americans -- 35 million people -- could not put food on the table at least part of last year. Eleven million of them reported going hungry at times. Beginning this year, the USDA has determined "very low food security" to be a more scientifically palatable description for that group.
The United States has set a goal of reducing the proportion of food-insecure households to 6 percent or less by 2010, or half the 1995 level, but it is proving difficult. The number of hungriest Americans has risen over the past five years. Last year, the total share of food-insecure households stood at 11 percent.
Less vexing has been the effort to fix the way hunger is described. Three years ago, the USDA asked the Committee on National Statistics of the National Academies "to ensure that the measurement methods USDA uses to assess households' access -- or lack of access -- to adequate food and the language used to describe those conditions are conceptually and operationally sound."
Among several recommendations, the panel suggested that the USDA scrap the word hunger, which "should refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation."
To measure hunger, the USDA determined, the government would have to ask individual people whether "lack of eating led to these more severe conditions," as opposed to asking who can afford to keep food in the house, Nord said.
It is not likely that USDA economists will tackle measuring individual hunger. "Hunger is clearly an important issue," Nord said. "But lacking a widespread consensus on what the word 'hunger' should refer to, it's difficult for research to shed meaningful light on it."
Anti-hunger advocates say the new words sugarcoat a national shame. "The proposal to remove the word 'hunger' from our official reports is a huge disservice to the millions of Americans who struggle daily to feed themselves and their families," said David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, an anti-hunger advocacy group. "We . . . cannot hide the reality of hunger among our citizens."
In assembling its report, the USDA divides Americans into groups with "food security" and those with "food insecurity," who cannot always afford to keep food on the table. Under the old lexicon, that group -- 11 percent of American households last year -- was categorized into "food insecurity without hunger," meaning people who ate, though sometimes not well, and "food insecurity with hunger," for those who sometimes had no food.
That last group now forms the category "very low food security," described as experiencing "multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake." Slightly better-off people who aren't always sure where their next meal is coming from are labeled "low food security."
That 35 million people in this wealthy nation feel insecure about their next meal can be hard to believe, even in the highest circles. <b>In 1999, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, then running for president, said he thought the annual USDA report -- which consistently finds his home state one of the hungriest in the nation -- was fabricated.</b>
"I'm sure there are some people in my state who are hungry," Bush said. "I don't believe 5 percent are hungry."
Bush said he believed that the statistics were aimed at his candidacy. "Yeah, I'm surprised a report floats out of Washington when I'm running a presidential campaign," he said.
The agency usually releases the report in the fall, for reasons that "have nothing to do with politics," Nord said.
This year, when the report failed to appear in October as it usually does, Democrats accused the Bush administration of delaying its release until after the midterm elections. Nord denied the contention, saying, "This is a schedule that was set several months ago."
<center><img src="http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/11/16/GR2006111600045.gif"></center>
|
....and why would you compare the hunger problem in the US to the situations in third world countries such as Thailand, with 1/5 of per capita income of the US, and Egypt, with less than 1/10 of US per capita income?
But, since you did compare the US to those countries, please take note of the fact that Thailand has a lower poverty rate than the US does, compared to the respective mean incomes in each country. Notice, too....that in both Egypt and Thailand, the bottome ten percent enjoy almost twice the 1.8 percent of total national income that reaches the bottom ten percent of the US population.
Are you defending the idea that, in the US, a country where the average income is five to ten times the average income in Thailand and Egypt, hunger that is say....."half" as severe, for the bottom ten percent here in the US, as it is in those much poorer places, is acceptable, or out of the realm of your belief system, as it seemed to be out of candidate Bush's?
Your opinions contradict the reports from the USDA, and the CIA factbook offers statistics that indicate that the bottom ten percent here control only 1.8 percent of the total wealth, 1/17 of the top ten percents' 1997 figure of 30.5 percent. ....and if the CIA factbook can tell us the income distribution in the last few years in foreing countries, why do your think that 30.5 percent wealth figure for the top ten percent in the US is from 1997...nine years old now.....?
You say that it is not so bad here....but don't the income numbers tell us that it should be five times better for the poorest here, than in Thailand?
Your comparisons of conditions of the poorest of the population living in the wealthiest major country in the world, with the plight of the poorest in 4 or 5 impoverished third world countries, as a method to dismiss the hunger problem in the wealthiest major country, is unconvincing and disturbing to me. It reminds me of Newt's shameful rhetoric:
Quote:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...ms-of-katrina/
(Newt Gingrich, speaking at CPAC) blamed the residents of New Orleans' 9th Ward for a "failure of citizenship," by being "so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn't get out of the way of a hurricane."
And he called for a "deep investigation" into this "failure of citizenship."
Here's the full quote:
How can you have the mess we have in New Orleans, and not have had deep investigations of the federal government, the state government, the city government, and the failure of citizenship in the Ninth Ward, where 22,000 people were so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn't get out of the way of a hurricane. (emphasis original)
To listen to the audio, click here.
I tell you, this CPAC convention really highlights the humanity of these conservatives. And the worst part? It's not the first time Newt's put this in one of his speeches. Jeffrey Feldman has more…
|
You and the political agenda that you support does not recognize that there is a crisis in the US. and that hunger is only a real symptom of it. Keep backing bills like the "bankruptcy reform act", and reduction of short term capital gains taxes from 28 percent to 15 percent, and tax cuts that shift, even slightly, the total tax burden from the top ten percent to the bottom twenty percent of income earners, and a "fair tax" that eliminates progressive income taxation, or propaganda that changes the description of estate taxes to "death" taxes.
Keep pushing an agenda that makes it impossible for the rural poor to obtain birth control and sex education, and birth control products and access to safe clinical abortion.....
Keep doing all of the things that I've described republicans' supporting, and you'll succeed in shifting that last 1.8 percent of the national income that does trickle down to the poorest ten percent in the US, and keep denying that there is a hunger problem, here, because you have witnessed REAL hunger....and maybe you'll get to see REAL hunger here, too!
Quote:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/th.html
Thailand
Infant mortality rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total: 19.49 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 20.77 deaths/1,000 live births
GDP (purchasing power parity):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$585.9 billion (2006 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$9,100 (2006 est.)
female: 18.15 deaths/1,000 live births (2006 est.)
Population below poverty line:
Definition Field Listing
10% (2004 est.)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
Definition Field Listing
lowest 10%: 2.8%
highest 10%: 32.4% (1998)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
Definition Field Listing
51.1 (2002)
|
Quote:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/eg.html
Egypt
Infant mortality rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total: 31.33 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 32.04 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 30.58 deaths/1,000 live births (2006 est.)
GDP (purchasing power parity):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$328.1 billion (2006 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$4,200 (2006 est.)
Population below poverty line:
Definition Field Listing
20% (2005 est.)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
Definition Field Listing
lowest 10%: 4.4%
highest 10%: 25% (1995)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
Definition Field Listing
34.4 (2001)
|
Quote:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/us.html
United States
Infant mortality rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total: 6.43 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 7.09 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.74 deaths/1,000 live births (2006 est.)
GDP (purchasing power parity):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$12.98 trillion (2006 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$43,500 (2006 est.)
Population below poverty line:
Definition Field Listing
12% (2004 est.)
<h3>Household income or consumption by percentage share:
Definition Field Listing
lowest 10%: 1.8%</h3>
highest 10%: 30.5% (1997)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
Definition Field Listing
45 (2004)
|
Last edited by host; 03-05-2007 at 01:26 AM..
|