Hunger in America

[RandFan]

I counter with the proposal that people be should held accountable for their own lives (gasp) and that the welfare mentality/methodologies, despite the best of intentions, simply do not work.

I posit that we are an evolved social species. I posit that all science demonstrates this. I posit that social species are successful because individuals are willing to give up temporary fitness for the over all fitness of the group. This a scientific model that involves evolution, reciprocal altruism and a mathematical model under the umbrella "game theory primarily Tit for Tat". Based on this theory field researchers, anthropologists, behaviorists and psychologists have developed robust explanations and predictions. To date all evidence fits this model and demonstrates that it is correct. (see vampire bats, Index for Economic Freedom *list below, Human Development Index, GDP, Per Capital GDP, etc., etc.

It works because evolution endowed humans with individual drive to be better and empathy and compassion. On average, most people don't perform at their best when they witness suffering. A healthy and vibrant society is good for all.

You are simply arguing by assertion, appealing to intuition and you are engaging in a false dichotomy. It's possible to hold people accountable to some degree for their lives and also offer safety nets. There is no science for this conservative mantra. Though, to be honest, it's not as if there is no truth to your point. I'm still an Ayn Rand fan. We need incentives for thrift, hard work, study, and savings. I believe in personal responsibility. We can't give everyone everything they want. There is a point of diminishing returns. But look at the conservative prepared (the Heritage Foundation) and conservative published (the Wall Street Journal)Index for Economic Freedom. Denmark, among the nations with the most generous social welfare is in the to 10. They have wealth because most people don't want to simply survive. They want to thrive (see Maslow's Hierarchy Needs).

Hong Kong
Singapore
Australia
New Zealand
Switzerland
Canada
Chile
Mauritius
Denmark
United States

 

[RandFan]

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Australia
4. New Zealand
5. Switzerland
6. Canada
7. Chile
8. Mauritius
9. Denmark
10. United States

Where are the Laissez-faire, libertarian, anarcho-capitalist (whatever) nations that are high in economic freedom, human development or any other index?


How come the nations highest in wealth and well being have generious social programs? I'll tell you, we ARE a social species and we are most productive when the most people are healthy and not suffering.


There is actually a scientific model that explains it perfectly. As for the "**** you I got mine" mentality. There is no viable scientific model. We aren't a solitary species and pseudo science like social Darwinism is so poorly defined it cannot even be falsified.



"Evolution is cleverer than you are." Orgel's Second Rule

 

[RandFan]

I"m on disability:

I can survive. Barely. I cannot go on vacation. I can't go to restaurants. I can't go to the movies. I cannot afford cable TV or satellite. The only luxury I have is an old computer and an internet connection.

It's difficult to get buy on what I bring in but it is possible. I want more, much more than the state is ever going to give me. I want better living conditions. I want to be able to not have to depend on the kindness of strangers in order to have a beer from time to time or to go see a show.

I want the control of my life that financial independence brings. I don't want to ride the bus everywhere. I don't want to have to say to my wife, I'm sorry but we just cannot afford that.

So, I'm working to get off disability. I have one more surgery and physical therapy. I'm studying to get certified in HIPPA and GAAP.

If the state gave me a little more money so I would not suffer as much stress and concern I would not put my feet up and say "this is the life I'm not going to try and work again". That's just dumb as is evidenced by nations like Denmark, Australia, and others. See that Index of Economic Freedom again, good Christ, that social bastion of a nation Canada is on it.

What the hell do conservatives fear from helping out our neighbors? There is no scientific evidence that improving the lives of those who are disadvantaged will harm the economy or rich people.

"How many yachts can you water-ski behind?" --Bud Fox

 

[kellyb]

I posit that we are an evolved social species. I posit that all science demonstrates this. I posit that social species are successful because individuals are willing to give up temporary fitness for the over all fitness of the group. This a scientific model that involves evolution, reciprocal altruism and a mathematical model under the umbrella "game theory primarily Tit for Tat". Based on this theory field researchers, anthropologists, behaviorists and psychologists have developed robust explanations and predictions. To date all evidence fits this model and demonstrates that it is correct. (see vampire bats, Index for Economic Freedom *list below, Human Development Index, GDP, Per Capital GDP, etc., etc.

It works because evolution endowed humans with individual drive to be better and empathy and compassion. On average, most people don't perform at their best when they witness suffering. A healthy and vibrant society is good for all.

You are simply arguing by assertion, appealing to intuition and you are engaging in a false dichotomy. It's possible to hold people accountable to some degree for their lives and also offer safety nets. There is no science for this conservative mantra. Though, to be honest, it's not as if there is no truth to your point. I'm still an Ayn Rand fan. We need incentives for thrift, hard work, study, and savings. I believe in personal responsibility. We can't give everyone everything they want. There is a point of diminishing returns. But look at the conservative prepared (the Heritage Foundation) and conservative published (the Wall Street Journal)Index for Economic Freedom. Denmark, among the nations with the most generous social welfare is in the to 10. They have wealth because most people don't want to simply survive. They want to thrive (see Maslow's Hierarchy Needs).

Hong Kong
Singapore
Australia
New Zealand
Switzerland
Canada
Chile
Mauritius
Denmark
United States

Wonderful post. About this:

I'm still an Ayn Rand fan.

Why?
Should I start a spinoff thread?

 

[RandFan]

Why?
Should I start a spinoff thread?

I don't think a separate thread is needed. I don't see people in simple dichotomies. I accept her deficiencies and I'm happy to acknowledge them. I don't feel the need to defend her as her words and behavior speak for themselves.

I'm a fan for some reasons that have nothing to with the discussion and so being OT will skip those. However, I'm also a fan because she understood the importance of the individual, like the socialist Orwell, Rand believed that with few exceptions (perhaps defensive war), the individual should never be sacrificed to the state. Rand understood the power of human nature to want better and to the ability to forgo immediate satisfaction for preferable long term goals, IOW, sacrifice in order to succeed. She popularized the importance of capitalism during a time when the world seemed hell bent on embracing so called "communism".

I'm not an Ayn Rand follower, I'm not an objectivist and find her followers to be some what cultish. He followers is the reason I swore not to put James Randi, Michael Shermer, or any of my heroes so high on a pedestal that I would be willing to drink any kool-aid they provided. I'm skeptical of them all.

Finally, I enthusiastically support rational self interest. It is by far my favorite concept of hers that she introduced. What Rand didn't understand is that it is in our rational self interest to give up temporary fitness for the good of the group (see taxation and spending, income redistribution, etc.). Welfare, food stamps, WIC, Section 8, etc., are in our rational self interest because we are a social species.

So called "communism" vs "Laissez-Faire capitalism" represents a false dichotomy. What has been demonstrated time and time again to work fantastically is some mix of economies, regulation, free markets, etc.. Keynesian or something akin to it.

Communism fails to realize that life is personal. Capitalism fails to realize that life is social. --Martin Luther King

 

[kellyb]

Gotcha, and thanks, Randfan.

 

[phildonnia]

Let me make some things clear before this becomes a debate on the morality of welfare in general, or of the effects of poverty in general.


I am willing to grant that there is a societal interest in feeding hungry people, even if they are complete deadbeats. My life is improved by not having emaciated bodies all over the sidewalk. My life is improved by knowing that there are no emaciated bodies hidden in squalid apartments. And I'm willing to pay for that. And since it's a public problem, I'm even ok, in principle, with the government forcing everyone to pay for it.

I do think that it's reasonable to pursue the goal in an intelligent way, which would include honestly assessing the problem and its solutions. From the link in the OP:

The National Journal recently named the SNAP as "one of the government's top successes" and the GAO has repeatedly reported on the successes of this important program.

I am suspicious of any reports on the successes of these programs because no one has sufficiently demonstrated the very existence of the problem.


I also do not need any convincing that poverty ("relative" poverty, that is) exists in America, and is an unpleasant condition to live under. Whether this condition involves malnutrition has yet to be proven, as far as I can see.


I understand that poverty, and any associated hunger, will have many different causes, some of which are the responsibility of the sufferer, and some which are not. There's some debate over which is which, and what to do about it, but I'm not addressing this in this thread.


What would make this issue clearer in my mind would be facts of the form

"X% of Americans are constrained by poverty to consume less than Y calories per day."
"X% of Americans are suffering disease, pain, or discomfort due to chronic hunger."
"A healthy diet cannot always be maintained within the budget imposed by the SNAP program."
"Some other cause than lack of cash resources causes involuntary hunger (e.g.: lack of transportation, lack of clean water, lack of planning and budgeting skills)"

 

[fuelair]

I actually buy the pre-packaged salads for about $2; generally get about 5 servings out of them. Of course, if you want dressing the price goes up quite a bit, but I don't like the taste of most of the dressings; too much vinegar in my opinion.

Bratwurst is not something I'd eat every day, nor are the TV dinners, but they're not going to kill you in moderation. Spaghetti is another good, cheap meal. I also make delicious chicken quesadillas; I've got a little quesadilla maker I picked up for about $5 at Goodwill. The tortillas run about 20 cents, the cheese is an extra 20 cents and I can definitely feel full with only about 60 cents of chicken cooked inside that. If I feel like splurging, I put a little sour cream on top of that; Fry's had it on sale a week or two ago for $1.00 for 16 oz; add some La Victoria salsa (on special at Winco foods for $3.70 for a 67 oz jug), and maybe you're up to $1.15.

I'm really careful to look for good bargains on snacks as well. The other day I scored pretty well; picked up store brand granola bars (peanut and almond with some chocolate) packed at 6 in a box for only $10 for 10 boxes. And they are absolutely delicious; you would not think you're eating something that cost 17 cents.

Fruit is a little tougher to find cheap especially out of season. Bananas seem about 57 cents a pound no matter where I shop. I did get a smoking deal on blueberries a little while ago; 2lbs for $5.00. And they can be frozen, so you can eat them for quite awhile. I put them in pancakes and make another delicious meal for a couple of dimes.

Please try to do something about or to the La Victoria. Yes, it is cheap, but you can repair/improve the taste so much with some fresh peppers and fresh cilantro. And there are enough preservatives that the cilantro and peppers won't turn on you. The salsa is so important!!! And, very healthy for you!!!

 

[kellyb]

What would make this issue clearer in my mind would be facts of the form

"X% of Americans are constrained by poverty to consume less than Y calories per day."
"X% of Americans are suffering disease, pain, or discomfort due to chronic hunger."
"A healthy diet cannot always be maintained within the budget imposed by the SNAP program."
"Some other cause than lack of cash resources causes involuntary hunger (e.g.: lack of transportation, lack of clean water, lack of planning and budgeting skills)"

The closest thing I can find is this:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0214.pdf

The severity of food insecurity in households is measured through a series of questions about experiences and behaviors
known to characterize households that are having difficulty meeting basic food needs. These experiences and behaviors generally
occur in an ordered sequence as the severity of food insecurity increases. As resources become more constrained, adults in
typical households first worry about having enough food, then they stretch household resources and juggle other necessities, then
decrease the quality and variety of household members’ diets, then decrease the frequency and quantity of adults’ food intake,
and finally decrease the frequency and quantity of children’s food intake. All questions refer to the previous 12 months and include
a qualifying phrase reminding respondents to report only those occurrences that resulted from inadequate financial resources.

And it's ("very low food security") less than 7% of the population.

Among that group:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food...nitions-of-food-security.aspx#characteristics

99 percent reported having worried that their food would run out before they got money to buy more.
97 percent reported that the food they bought just did not last and they did not have money to get more.
94 percent reported that they could not afford to eat balanced meals.
96 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there was not enough money for food.
89 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months.
95 percent of respondents reported that they had eaten less than they felt they should because there was not enough money for food.
68 percent of respondents reported that they had been hungry but did not eat because they could not afford enough food.
47 percent of respondents reported having lost weight because they did not have enough money for food.
29 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food.
23 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months.

Here's some really recent evidence:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3656707/

The rate of patients reporting hunger significantly increased over the 3-year period [20.3% in 2007, 27.8% in 2008, and 38.3% in 2009 (p<0.001)]. The rate of patients reporting ever having to choose between food and medicine also increased [20.0% in 2007, 18.5% in 2008, and 22.6% in 2009 (p=0.006)].

They define "hunger" as:

Following government definitions and prior studies, we understand the definition of “hunger” to be not having enough to eat, not eating for an entire day, or not eating because of lack of money to buy food.

And they say:

Among children, hunger and food insecurity are associated with increases in multiple nutritional deficiencies, anemia, viral syndromes, and ear infections.26–36 In children and adults alike, hunger and food insecurity are associated with headaches, stomach aches, viral syndromes, and significant mental health problems including learning disabilities, anxiety, depression, suicidality, and psychosocial dysfunction.37–45

In our study, a high percentage of patients reported having to choose between buying food or medicine over the 3 years of the study. The number of patients describing themselves as being in “poor health” also increased, as did the number of patients who reported a chronic illness. While the growing prevalence of hunger among our ED patients is alarming, of most concern is the patient population that needs medications to maintain their health but cannot afford both medication and the food they need to survive.

 

[RandFan]

Let me make some things clear before this becomes a debate on the morality of welfare in general, or of the effects of poverty in general.

I am willing to grant that there is a societal interest in feeding hungry people, even if they are complete deadbeats. My life is improved by not having emaciated bodies all over the sidewalk. My life is improved by knowing that there are no emaciated bodies hidden in squalid apartments. And I'm willing to pay for that. And since it's a public problem, I'm even ok, in principle, with the government forcing everyone to pay for it.

Thank you.

I do think that it's reasonable to pursue the goal in an intelligent way, which would include honestly assessing the problem and its solutions.

Agreed.

From the link in the OP:

The National Journal recently named the SNAP as "one of the government's top successes" and the GAO has repeatedly reported on the successes of this important program.

I am suspicious of any reports on the successes of these programs because no one has sufficiently demonstrated the very existence of the problem.

It's a fair question. When I lost my job due to severe edema I had zero cash flow. I eventually burned through savings and lost my house. It took me two years and farming out my kids to friends and relatives to survive until my first disability check. Thanks to SNAP I was able to survive.

I also do not need any convincing that poverty ("relative" poverty, that is) exists in America, and is an unpleasant condition to live under. Whether this condition involves malnutrition has yet to be proven, as far as I can see.

Fortunately, for many, SNAP prevents serious problems of malnutrition. You won't find many cases of scurvy, rickets or other diseases associated with severe malnutrition because we do provide a safety net. However, according to John Hopkins about 1% of children show signs of moderate malnutrition. They cite as a source National Institutes of Health and U.S. National Library of Medicine

Malnourished children may be short for their age, thin or bloated, listless, and have weakened immune systems. Nutritional disorders can affect any system in the body and the senses of sight, taste, and smell. They may also produce anxiety, changes in mood, and other psychiatric symptoms.
Other symptoms include:

• Pale, thick, and dry skin
• Bruises easily
• Rashes
• Changes in skin pigmentation
• Thin hair that is tightly curled, and pulls out easily
• Achy joints
• Bones are soft and tender
• Gums bleed easily
• Tongue may be swollen or shriveled and cracked
• Night blindness
• Increased sensitivity to light and glare

You may also want to check out this 2011 study. Map the Meal Gap 2012

I will say that a number of these cases could simply be due to neglect, but given that SNAP is actually good for the economy (see below) and given that there is little evidence that SNAP significantly reduces productivity or increase dependance I don't see the point of cutting food stamps. It makes little sense to me.

The Economic Case for Food Stamps

 

[kellyb]

Fortunately for many SNAP prevents serious problems of malnutrition. You won't find many cases of scurvy, rickets or other diseases associated with severe malnutrition because we do provide a safety net.

I agree, but this is a pretty amazing increase since 2007 (from one of my links above):

The rate of patients reporting hunger significantly increased over the 3-year period [20.3% in 2007, 27.8% in 2008, and 38.3% in 2009]

That's a 2013 study, but 2009 was the most recent year they had data for.

It seems implausible that the massive increase in unemployment since the Great Recession isn't responsible for that increase.

 

[RandFan]

I agree, but this is a pretty amazing increase since 2007 (from one of my links above):



That's a 2013 study, but 2009 was the most recent year they had data for.

It seems implausible that the massive increase in unemployment since the Great Recession isn't responsible for that increase.

Kelly, I apologize but I did not read that post. Thank you for following up. I'm not exactly certain what Conservatives are worried about, fairness? What is fair about being born poor?

And do Conservatives truly think that the greatest economic down turn for the lower classes had zero affect on hunger.

 

[kellyb]

These statistics are repeated wherever there is a point to be made, but when you look at the study that produced the figure, "hunger" is quietly replaced with "food insecurity". The term apparently means being forced by economics to make choices, or being worried about having to do so.

What am I missing?

Looks like "hunger" legally stopped existing in the US in 2006:

http://www.childrenshealthwatch.org/upload/resource/cook_frank_annals_08.pdf

USDA/ERS recently implemented more changes
in how results from the Census Bureau’s annual administration of the FSS are reported.8
These changes affect terminology used to label the most severe level
of deprivation measured by both the household and children’s scales by replacing the term “hunger” with
the blander term “very low food security.”6 Because
this change is relatively recent, and not uniformly accepted by either scientists or advocates, we have elected
to use the original term “hunger” in this review where appropriate.

 

[Brainster]

Please try to do something about or to the La Victoria. Yes, it is cheap, but you can repair/improve the taste so much with some fresh peppers and fresh cilantro. And there are enough preservatives that the cilantro and peppers won't turn on you. The salsa is so important!!! And, very healthy for you!!!

And probably cheaper. Although I will leave out the cilantro; I never liked it.

 

[gumboot]

The idea that a country must be completely self-sufficient to be prosperous (even in a single important industry) has never been true.

Of course. But history shows us that countries that cannot feed their own population are extremely vulnerable. Given the expectation that the pressure on the world's food production is only going to increase with increasing populations, increasing urbanisation, and increasing climate change, the WHO considers food insecurity to be an extremely serious problem.

There are other considerations, of course. At the moment large portions of the world rely on exported US grain for their own food. If the US becomes a net importer of food Americans will probably be fine, at least for a while, but tens of millions of humans outside the US will be in grave danger of starvation.

 

[gumboot]

If the state gave me a little more money so I would not suffer as much stress and concern I would not put my feet up and say "this is the life I'm not going to try and work again". That's just dumb as is evidenced by nations like Denmark, Australia, and others. See that Index of Economic Freedom again, good Christ, that social bastion of a nation Canada is on it.

New Zealand too, (at number 4) has a very robust social welfare system (including free healthcare).

 

[Magyar]

I'm on disability and that is about what I live on for food. It's tough. I eat a lot of starch, rice, Ramen, pasta, potatoes, hot dogs, bread and veggies. Some chicken and occasionally beef or pork if it is on sale.

And you know what, most of the foods you've listed are ones contributing to the obesity of US.

Personally I don't even consider hot dogs as food, but YMMV, but highly processed left over meat products - like hot dogs and cold cuts - full of preservatives, salts and grizzle are the worst possible food you could eat - ala high cholesteral. Ramen has enough salt in one serving to meet requirements for like a week and half - ala high blood pressure. Assuming white bread (because it's the cheapest) highly processed flour is the worst option. Pastas with high carbs convert to sugars is you don't burn them off thus you put on pounds. Further, because of human evolution, when you're meals are not consistent your body actually goes into preservation mode and you actually put on more weight - this is why most diets don't work.

Again, note that part of the issue with US diet has a lot to do with the corporate welfare and wealth transfer actively promoted by the right wingers here and certainly in Congress
ala sugar industry for example and cheese while fruits and veggies are if available ( try buying some in some of the run down uran neighborhood bodegas.) are far more expensive.

 

[RandFan]

Please try to do something about or to the La Victoria. Yes, it is cheap, but you can repair/improve the taste so much with some fresh peppers and fresh cilantro. And there are enough preservatives that the cilantro and peppers won't turn on you. The salsa is so important!!! And, very healthy for you!!!

I've found at least a dozen ways to improve Ramen. Canned cut grean beans, Fried in a skillet with sesame oil or just some pam (you don't need much grease). Egg drop. Rice, Onion flakes, different hot sauces. Snap peas and cabbage are good in the fired version or the regular way. Left over veggies are a great addition also. Pasta is cheap and we buy lots of different sizes and shapes. There are dozens if not hundreds of tomato based toppings (I don't care for the ketchup version). Try bow tie pasta, cook until tender, rinse add V8 juice and hamburger. Or pasta with just italian seasoned chunky tomatoes, tomato paste and sause. I mix 1 small can of tomato paste (prefer sun dried), 1 medium to large can of tomato sauce and 1 medium can of Italian chunky tomatoes. You can add hot dogs, hamburger or spicy sausage if you can afford it.

Go to the dollar store for bread and find stores that will sell dented cans at a discount. Also, find your local food pantries. Some times you have to sit through sermon but hey, it's food. Last time I went we got a lot of fresh salmon that was to die for. We ate like 4 meals including salmon loaf, grilled baked and poached.

 

[RandFan]

And you know what, most of the foods you've listed are ones contributing to the obesity of US.

No question. Processed foods high in salt, sugar and fat have become the mainstay of the poor. It's the very sentiment of the apocryphal "let them eat cake) (cake was bread at that time and not a confection).

Personally I don't even consider hot dogs as food, but YMMV, but highly processed left over meat products - like hot dogs and cold cuts - full of preservatives, salts and grizzle are the worst possible food you could eat - ala high cholesteral. Ramen has enough salt in one serving to meet requirements for like a week and half - ala high blood pressure. Assuming white bread (because it's the cheapest) highly processed flour is the worst option. Pastas with high carbs convert to sugars is you don't burn them off thus you put on pounds. Further, because of human evolution, when you're meals are not consistent your body actually goes into preservation mode and you actually put on more weight - this is why most diets don't work.

Again, note that part of the issue with US diet has a lot to do with the corporate welfare and wealth transfer actively promoted by the right wingers here and certainly in Congress
ala sugar industry for example and cheese while fruits and veggies are if available ( try buying some in some of the run down uran neighborhood bodegas.) are far more expensive.

Beggers cannot be choosers. It's cynical but the right-wing have really figured out how to get the most mileage as they can from social programs. Social programs are a convenient whipping boy to fuel resentment of the poor. It's demagoguery and polemic.

My mother has been poor her entire life. My father was rarely able to provide sufficiently for our family. I know what it is like to be a child and go to bed hungry. I honestly know what it is like when the utilities are shut off and no one worries about food spoilage because there is nothing in the pantry.

Those facts have not changed my mother who is happy to repost memes on Facebook about poor people getting cell phones and who dine on lobster, steak and caviar. She wants the poor to be drug tested and she wants the govt to cut back on welfare (to make ends meet my mother takes church welfare)

I asked my mother just a month ago how often she had enough food assistance to buy prime rib (her favorite food). That just made her mad. "You don't understand" she said.

I do actually, I grew up poor and I was resentful of the poor because they were lazy. I wasn't a lazy moochers. I got up each and every morning to feed and water animals. When I came home I had farm chores that often took the entire night. So, just because my family accepted public assistance didn't make us "one of them". I would say that we were not alone in biting the hand that fed us.

Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

It shows the power of framing an argument. It's "those" moochers vs the good people who use public assistance and who want it scaled back or eliminated "My welfare and food assistance is righteous because of [insert rationalization here] though I would like the govt to end the welfare state."

 

[Joecool]

There's hunger in the U.S., but 50 million? That's from the "Department of People Who Pull Numbers Out of Their Butts." Until Mexico passed us recently, the U.S. has been #1 in the world in the "Lardasses and Hambeasts" department for a long time. I wouldn't stop giving to food banks, but I'm sick and tired of people who make up statistics to get sympathy and donations.

Edited to add: Kellyb's numbers look a lot more realistic. There's hunger here, but nowhere near "50 million."

Where I'm from, I noticed that many receiving SNAP (food stamps) appear to be overweight.

That being said, the US is currently issuing SNAP to about 1 in 7 people. Who's paying for these benefits? We have so many entitlement programs it's no wonder the US is deeply in debt.

I have some previous experience working with some folks who are on public assistance. All of these folks had cable TV and internet. It's just a matter of perspective. In the US, our welfare recipients live better than rank and file residents in some poor countries.

A friend of mine who still works in the welfare department said he got a few kicks when a complaining SNAP recipient used his Iphone to send in a complaint about not receiving enough SNAP benefits.