NationStates Jolt Archive

you've heard of the so-called 'missile gap' that
supposedly existed between the us & ussr
and other such false gaps....




Hunger in America
"Hunger in America up 43% in past five years"
Headline: Sciencedaily.com, October 29, 2005

"Food Stamp Cuts Are Proposed; House Plan Would Affect 300,000"
"About 40,000 children would lose eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunches"
Headline and text: Washington Post, November 3, 2005

"The way Americans seem to think today, about the only way to end hunger in America would be for Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird to go on national TV and say we are falling behind the Russians in feeding folks." Dick Gregory, "No More Lies; the myth and the reality of American history” (1971)
Perhaps today, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would have to say that we're falling behind the Cubans or the Venezuelans or al Qaeda in feeding folks.




William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
<www.killinghope.org >
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

It's fucking obscene that anyone could be malnourished in the richest nation on earth.

And it's so easy to think that US children would be in dire need of some starvation, what with the obesity and all.

It's fucking obscene that anyone could be malnourished in the richest nation on earth.
Its even more obscene that they are having the little bit of help they have cut from under them!

It's fucking obscene that anyone could be malnourished in the richest nation on earth.

Feeding children is for socialists.

Its even more obscene that they are having the little bit of help they have cut from under them!
Well it's neccessary. Some people sell their food stamps in order to buy crack. In order to deprive those few people of evil crack we must starve little kids. Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, or in this case starving some babies.:rolleyes:

It's fucking obscene that anyone could be malnourished in the richest nation on earth.The richest and fattest nation on earth. It is pretty obscene. The American dream may not have worked out so well for all the rich, fat, suburbanites, but it definitely hurt all the people it left behind, too.

school lunches and breakfast are the most important feeding programs we have. they are they only benefit their parents cant trade off for drugs or cigarettes or alcohol.

Well it's neccessary. Some people sell their food stamps in order to buy crack. In order to deprive those few people of evil crack we must starve little kids. Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, or in this case starving some babies.:rolleyes:
Another case of - the horrible druggies are out to exploit us- excuse to cut funding??

It's fucking obscene that anyone could be malnourished in the richest nation on earth.

What's "fucking obscene" is the belief that it's fine to point a gun at someone in order to "feed the children." Why should the whole nation be held responsible just because some people are having children they are unable to support? :headbang:

We could alternatively grind the starving children into McDonald's hamburgers, that way, everyone is happy!

*bites into a double quarter pounder*

I love the taste of stringy, tough, malnourished flesh at 21.30 in the evening...it tastes...it tastes like a lovely orgasim in my mouth, and the grease squirting into my eye is the climax of it all! Oh! Yes!

*chomps into another mouth watering piece of the double quarter pounder*

I crave more over fabricated, scientificly engineered meat from various different animals ranging from kangaroo, to cow, and now America's poor children! More, more, give me more! Arrrggghhhh!
-----
On a serious note: those kids should stop whining about starving and get off their lazy rumps, go out get an education, and get a job, so they can eat how ever much they want, and maybe even purchase weed and crack with money they earned the American way!

The 'Second World'/'Third World'! Does it exist in the U.S.?(Washington's Anacostia district; South Central Los Angeles; Appalachia; Reservations)

It's fucking obscene that anyone could be malnourished in the richest nation on earth.
No, what is really obscene is that they are cutting all of these programs to fund the "war" bullshit.

What's "fucking obscene" is the belief that it's fine to point a gun at someone in order to "feed the children." Why should the whole nation be held responsible just because some people are having children they are unable to support?
No, that sentiment is obscene.

What's "fucking obscene" is the belief that it's fine to point a gun at someone in order to "feed the children." Why should the whole nation be held responsible just because some people are having children they are unable to support? :headbang:
1) It's morally reprehensible to allow kids to starve through no fault of their own. If you think it's OK, you're not as good as me or most other humans.

2) Malnourished kids have long term cognitive deficits. Morons weaken the nation.

3) Poor kids who get a descent chance to make something of themselves through proper food, health care, and education strengthen the nation.

No, what is really obscene is that they are cutting all of these programs to fund the "war" bullshit.


No, that sentiment is obscene.
If W hadn't cut taxes so severely we could fund both.

1) It's morally reprehensible to allow kids to starve through no fault of their own. If you think it's OK, you're not as good as me or most other humans.

It's also morally reprehensible to hold one responsible for the acts of another. For example, forcibly taking money from someone to subsidize another's irresponsibility. It's really too bad that some children are born to jackass parents who can't feed them, but if we reward their inability to stop breeding "in the name of the children", they'll just keep having more and the problem will get worse.

So what's the solution? Dump welfare and child labor laws, so that if a child is born into a truly bad situation, they can pull themselves out without being a drain on society. *watches all the bleeding hearts explode*

It's also morally reprehensible to hold one responsible for the acts of another. For example, forcibly taking money from someone to subsidize another's irresponsibility. It's really too bad that some children are born to jackass parents who can't feed them, but if we reward their inability to stop breeding "in the name of the children", they'll just keep having more and the problem will get worse.

So what's the solution? Dump welfare and child labor laws, so that if a child is born into a truly bad situation, they can pull themselves out without being a drain on society. *watches all the bleeding hearts explode*
Wait! I have a snappy comeback about feeding trolls instead of children!

It's also morally reprehensible to hold one responsible for the acts of another. For example, forcibly taking money from someone to subsidize another's irresponsibility. It's really too bad that some children are born to jackass parents who can't feed them, but if we reward their inability to stop breeding "in the name of the children", they'll just keep having more and the problem will get worse.

So what's the solution? Dump welfare and child labor laws, so that if a child is born into a truly bad situation, they can pull themselves out without being a drain on society. *watches all the bleeding hearts explode*
It's not subsidizing irresponsibility. The kids aren't irresponsible for being born. It's subsidizing the well being of future productive members of society. Healthy, educated citizens benefit the nation as a whole. You're buying a more qualified and capable workforce for your tax dollars.

Child labor? You must be kidding me. What good will that do? We don't have enough jobs for unskilled laborers now. A glut of such people will only decrease wages and increase poverty and misery for all.

It's also morally reprehensible to hold one responsible for the acts of another. For example, forcibly taking money from someone to subsidize another's irresponsibility. It's really too bad that some children are born to jackass parents who can't feed them, but if we reward their inability to stop breeding "in the name of the children", they'll just keep having more and the problem will get worse.

So what's the solution? Dump welfare and child labor laws, so that if a child is born into a truly bad situation, they can pull themselves out without being a drain on society. *watches all the bleeding hearts explode*
oh yes that would work SOOO well! so many parents who cant be bothered to feed their kids would let them keep their wages so they can feed themselves

there are SOOOOO many great spots in our society for people with utterly no education. its a piece of cake to pull yourself out of poverty by starting to work at some incredilbly menial job at 6. by the time youre 18 you might be making minimum wage!

social darwinism is a great way to make a better country. see how far we have fallen since we gave it up back in the 30s.

Feeding children is for socialists.

Not stereotypical enough. You need a gun smiley or two in that post (maybe a head-banging-on-wall-one too) to make it seem really authentic.

What's "fucking obscene" is the belief that it's fine to point a gun at someone in order to "feed the children." Why should the whole nation be held responsible just because some people are having children they are unable to support? :headbang:
:rolleyes:

I love libertarians.

:rolleyes:

I love libertarians.

Randroids. ;)

It's not subsidizing irresponsibility. The kids aren't irresponsible for being born. It's subsidizing the well being of future productive members of society. Healthy, educated citizens benefit the nation as a whole.

Really? I guess that's why no one on welfare are having kids to bring in more money... Oh wait...

You're buying a more qualified and capable workforce for your tax dollars.

Ok. Where is this qualified and capable workforce you speak of? Welfare provides no incentive to work. It's just teaching people they can be total fuckups and someone else will take care of their problems [read children] for them.

Child labor? You must be kidding me. What good will that do? We don't have enough jobs for unskilled laborers now. A glut of such people will only decrease wages and increase poverty and misery for all.

So it's better to have a lot of people not working and living off of those who do, instead of having everyone work for less? I'm not following you. If anything, the latter is better because MORE wealth would be generated. Kinda like how when a company "exploits" third world labor, everyone in that country ultimately benefits.

Your line about unskilled labor is also BS. The end of child labor laws would mean the return of apprenticeships, where children would *gasp* learn a skilled trade, instead of wasting 12 years in worthless public education. Look what's happening now. Tech companies are going overseas, not because they're greedy, but because people here are too fucking stupid and lazy to fill required positions.

Randroids. ;)

Libertarian. I'm in disagreement with several of the ARI's positions. Lewrockwell.com is more in line with my thinking.

oh yes that would work SOOO well! so many parents who cant be bothered to feed their kids would let them keep their wages so they can feed themselves

And yet, there are solutions to even this problem. Bank accounts the parents cannot touch. Employers paying a portion of their wages in food.

social darwinism is a great way to make a better country. see how far we have fallen since we gave it up back in the 30s.

I'm not advocating social darwinism. I'm advocating the end of forced redistribution of wealth. If people wish to voluntarily donate to the poor, they will receive no criticism from me.

Really? I guess that's why no one on welfare are having kids to bring in more money... Oh wait... No, they're not. Welfare doesn't pay you enough to raise a kid. Breeding for bucks is a losing proposition.



Ok. Where is this qualified and capable workforce you speak of? Welfare provides no incentive to work. It's just teaching people they can be total fuckups and someone else will take care of their problems [read children] for them. Plenty of people get off of welfare and join the workforce. Welfare needs to be reformed so that more people can be turned into productive workers, but it shouldn't be scrapped.



So it's better to have a lot of people not working and living off of those who do, instead of having everyone work for less? I'm not following you. If anything, the latter is better because MORE wealth would be generated. Kinda like how when a company "exploits" third world labor, everyone in that country ultimately benefits. Bullshit. A glut of unskilled labor will not generate wealth. It will produce third world conditions in the US. Middle class consumers, educated workers, and innovative science and technology generate wealth. What's happening in the third world only enriches the factory owners. Living conditions for the peasant workers usually decline.

Your line about unskilled labor is also BS. The end of child labor laws would mean the return of apprenticeships, where children would *gasp* learn a skilled trade, instead of wasting 12 years in worthless public education. Look what's happening now. Tech companies are going overseas, not because they're greedy, but because people here are too fucking stupid and lazy to fill required positions. I don't know about you, but my high school had vocational training for people who wanted to be mechanics, carpenters, et cetera. They spent half of the day in regular school, then went to either of two sites that handled vocational training.



Libertarian. I'm in disagreement with several of the ARI's positions. Lewrockwell.com is more in line with my thinking.

If W hadn't cut taxes so severely we could fund both.
It isn't so much lack of income as bureaucratic and bullshit dispensing of it. All the partisans in Congress stow away money and the American public doesn't give a rat's ass about social programs - they think they are evil incarnate.

No, they're not. Welfare doesn't pay you enough to raise a kid. Breeding for bucks is a losing proposition.

Wait. If welfare isn't enough to raise a child, and the parents aren't working, wouldn't it be in the child's best interest to get a job?

Plenty of people get off of welfare and join the workforce. Welfare needs to be reformed so that more people can be turned into productive workers, but it shouldn't be scrapped.

Let's see. You're saying that in it's current state, people are able to leave welfare and find work. If they're able to work, why did they go on welfare to begin with? And if, in your opinion, welfare works, why should it be reformed?

Bullshit. A glut of unskilled labor will not generate wealth. It will produce third world conditions in the US. Middle class consumers, educated workers, and innovative science and technology generate wealth.

You've missed the point. Relaxing child labor laws will generate skilled labor.

What's happening in the third world only enriches the factory owners. Living conditions for the peasant workers usually decline.

I'd like to know what this fantasy is based upon. People in a 3rd world country are poor and starving. A business moves in to hire them. They now have money for food. Yet somehow they're worse off?

I don't know about you, but my high school had vocational training for people who wanted to be mechanics, carpenters, et cetera. They spent half of the day in regular school, then went to either of two sites that handled vocational training.

So did mine. That doesn't really mean anything though, as nobody has to take these training courses, and I have my doubts whether or not these courses instill a strong work ethic.

gee grumpy, your argument would make more sense if this were 1993. welfare has been reformed. there is no more "free ride" for parents of minor children.

children need to be in school. the government needs to make sure that children are FED so that they have a chance to grow up to be productive adults. food stamps, WIC, school lunch and breakfasts (as well as summer feeding programs in poor communities) help to make sure that our children can think well enough to do well in school if they try. it makes no sense to manufacture a permanent underclass of uneducated citizens who can never hope to make more than minimum wage.

children need to be in school.

WRONG! Public school indoctrinates helpless children into the cult of state-worship.

the government needs to make sure that children are FED so that they have a chance to grow up to be productive adults.

WRONG! This is the job of the parents.

food stamps, WIC, school lunch and breakfasts (as well as summer feeding programs in poor communities) help to make sure that our children can think well enough to do well in school if they try.

WRONG! Government schools do not encourage thought.

it makes no sense to manufacture a permanent underclass of uneducated citizens who can never hope to make more than minimum wage.

Abolishing welfare will not do this. Not to mention that minimum wage is a cruel joke played upon the poor. Sure it sounds good that nobody can be paid below a certain amount, but in reality it leads to inflation that leaves the poor no better off than they were before.

But who cares? Let's just keep them complacent and under our boots with free, worthless money. If any of them develop a sense of discontent, let's just use public education to redirect that anger towards the rich and away from these broken policies.:headbang:

So, basically what you're saying, Grumpy Old Guy, is that we should go back to the way things were done in the 'good ole days'?

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but that's never going to happen.

As far as why people are on welfare when they are capable of working, did it ever occur to you that maybe situations arose which made it a choice of welfare or homeless?

Not stereotypical enough. You need a gun smiley or two in that post (maybe a head-banging-on-wall-one too) to make it seem really authentic.

Yeah, but I can't make it seem too believable - doing so has previously led to people actually thinking I think these things.

And it's so easy to think that US children would be in dire need of some starvation, what with the obesity and all.

Exactly.....

The baseline is, you live in a society. You make contributions to that society so that it supports all that 'wealth' that you so richly 'deserve,' because without that society all you have is pretty paper. Feed a kid so he can contribute to the society and grow its wealth helps you and your own children in the long run.

If you don't feel any obligation to the society that supports you (and yes it does) wander off into the woods and build your cabin. You have to contribute in order for it to stand up. It's the way it has always worked.

Some light reading. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/SI_Kozol_StLouis.html)

A couple of things, Grumpy. First of all, you are sort of right, about minimum wage. It can, sometimes create inflation (which means that your comment about giving "free, worthless money" little sense, because the money is paid for through inflation). However, a quick glance at history shows that inflation through a min. wage is the lesser of two evils.

Second of all, calm down on your rage against education. I agree that many public schools suck, but all of them do not. Also, read the posts your responding to more carefully. Ashmoria said that the lunches and breakfasts at schools help to ensure that our children can think well. It is enormously more difficult to concentrate on an empty stomach, meaning that even if school does not stimulate the students brains, it allows for the possibilty of thought.

You may be right that many of these policies are broken. But that doesnt mean that they are broken beyond repair or that a broken policy is inferior to none at all.

Also, stop believing so many stereotypes!

Yeah, but I can't make it seem too believable - doing so has previously led to people actually thinking I think these things.

Hehe. But that opens up so many opportunities for fun. ;)

WRONG! Public school indoctrinates helpless children into the cult of state-worship.

Abolishing welfare will not do this. Not to mention that minimum wage is a cruel joke played upon the poor. Sure it sounds good that nobody can be paid below a certain amount, but in reality it leads to inflation that leaves the poor no better off than they were before.

But who cares? Let's just keep them complacent and under our boots with free, worthless money. If any of them develop a sense of discontent, let's just use public education to redirect that anger towards the rich and away from these broken policies.:headbang:
public school TRIES to indoctrinate children into state worship. they dont succeed all that well. in the meantime they teach children to read, write, do basic math, the basics of history, government, society, science. things they would never learn standing at a rug loom.

minimum wage may be a cruel joke but if there were no minimum wage and a few million extra untrained workers, they would be paid less than the current minimum wage and where would the joke be then.

and what great benefit do you see from a massive underclass of uneducated untrained poor? people who have close to no chance to escape poverty? all i see is a huge increase in drugs, crime and discontent. im not interested in future riots and revolution.

What could be causing the "hunger gap" is the standard for feeding people that is set up in the US. In a third world country, if you have hungry people, give them a 50# bag of rice and they are happier than clams. If you did that in the US, the recipient would go "WTF am I supposed to do with this?"

Food stamps are too attractive. Want to get people off of food stamps? Set up a "Crocodile Dundee" food program - "well, you can live on it, but it tastes like shit."

huh? you think you can stop people being hungry by feeding them crappy food? you think that people could be working more but they avoid taking that higher paying job because of the few dollars a month they get in food stamps??

for the vast majority of recipients food stamps mean that they are able to feed themselves and their families. most are the working poor. some are even members of the armed service who are stationed in high cost of living areas. some are the elderly who are on fixed incomes.

i dont think we need to begrudge people the means to make sure that everyone in the family gets enough to eat.

Well, it's not like people's food stamp purchases are audited, nor would it be practical to do so. All I'm saying is that the list should be restriced to a very very short list of staples. People that are starving will appreciate it and people that are just trying to milk the system for all its got will be disappointed.