One in six go hungry and over 3m are homeless

One in six go hungry and over 3m are homeless

“50 million people in the US – one in six of the population – were unable to afford to buy sufficient food to stay healthy at some point last year, in large part because of escalating unemployment or poorly paid jobs.”
Record numbers go hungry in the US
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/millions-hungry-households-us-report

The US government does not tally the numbers but interested organisations say that more than 3 million people were homeless at some point over the past year. The fastest growing segment of the homeless population is families with children, often single parents. On any given night in Los Angeles, about 17,000 parents and children are homeless.UN investigator accuses US of shameful neglect of homeless
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/12/un-investigator-us-neglect-homeless

*

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

 

The capitalist system is collapsing into itself.We've had a good 60 year run tho.The republican party was thoroughly dis-credited when they (Hoover)dithered around in the 30s during the big depression,during reagan's term with his "trickle down economics and now again with what they've left us after bush and his people were deposed.They are lurking in the back ground waiting while they bullshit the hapless citizens again,get back in charge,and fascillitate(resume) the huge transfer of capital upward to the ruling class as has been going on.They are and will continue to blame the democrats/liberals for the world-wide damage they caused.Don't worry too much about the hungry and homeless--the upper class in this country are doing fine. The rest of us will enjoy our cake,thank you.

 

I smell bullshit.......obesity is a way bigger problem than hunger.

The poorer the bigger seems to be the rule on the street.

only skinny rich people are going hungry, its called dieting

 

Piney

Well many experts point out that those that have a better diet are the ones that can afford better food and are better educated (an advantage associated with better off socio-economic groups).

Obesity Expert Calls Processed Food "Toxic"

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/processed_food.html

Thing is that in urban industrialised nations processed food is often the cheapest option. It is also the option that is most heavily advertised and is more heavily saturated with fats and sugars while being nutrient-poor. According to the World Health Organization such food stuffs are to blame for the sharp rise in obesity around the world.

 

I find it absolutely unbelievable that any government in a civilized, developed country can allow parents and children to go through the humilliating and soul destroying process of queuing up to get into a shelter every night. It's very unlikely that these families have deliberately become homeless and the government has to have some kind of monitoring system in place so that these families can be helped before they fall through the net.

 

I live in the bronx and I see so many fast food ads and fast food restaurants. I think we are too kind to corporations like McDonalds. I personally can't care less about their annual profits. But on the other side of the coin, is starving any better than eating processed food stuffs?

A $1 meal can keep people full, so a full days worth of food to keep from starving is about $3 :/ This is what my friends say (One of which owns a TacoBell/Pizza Hut so his opinion is a bit biased ), but there has to be a better way.

Personally, I don't see why people don't grab a bag of grains or legumes and cook it; take a $.50/$1(depending on the brand) pound bag bag of split peas; A one pound bag contains about ten servings, each serving being 200 calories in carbs and proteins and even fiber. It's as cheap as a Micky D's meal but it is healthier because it is loaded with nutrients, isn't processed or contains processed sugars and other substances... and in the end, even more filling.

I think one of the reasons people with low incomes choose McDonalds other than price is because it is 'tasty' and convenient (no need to cook). The human body becomes conditioned to receive certain kinds of foods as the taste buds become adjusted a bit too. But if healthier food with the same price were chosen, it would mean a bit of a sacrifice for a little while, but in time will learn to prefer the healthier food stocks and will end up feeling healthier because of it. So it's more than the inability to pay, it's also the unwillingness to make the conscious effort to change habits. To be fair, it can be difficult, especially with so much temptation that ads posses. I say, make fast food restaurant ads illegal and replace those ads with public health announcements, paid for by fast food corporations (or the government) as a penalty perhaps until they agree to serve healthier food stocks or keep it as a penalty for them existing - This is a national health crisis, so I think that it calls for it.

 

A lot of poor people who live on the streets or in very poor housing don't have the facilities to cook so convenient fast food is sometimes all that's available to them. It's a bit ironic that those of us who have the knowhow and inclination to eat more healthily and buy unprocessed and ultimately cheaper products can do so knowing that it's for our own benefit both financially and physically without thinking about where our next meal is coming from.

 

I've always thought that was incredibly unfair. A lot of the problem stems from factory farming and monoculture, though, which began when farming was decided to be just like any other business whose sole purpose is profit rather than what it should be thought of: sustaining human beings- a basic need with standards that NEED to be observed if we are to remain functional.

 

Obesity affects more people in the US than hunger. But obesity has a pretty simple cure.

Not everyone can get a job and rebuild their life from scratch.

 

Farming has always been a business. Nobody grew their food solely to eat it, they grew it to trade it with other people for other resources.

The modern system of agriculture feeds 6 billion people worldwide, and pre green revolution farming fed a billion people at it's height. On the same amount of land. It wasn't sustainable.

 

Are you saying there are no consequences of factory farming and monoculture? The sickness, the unnecessary abuse of animals (yes, we eat them, but we could be treating them a little better- they do have the capacity to suffer), the impact on the environment, all for food that eventually is wasted in huge quantities anyway?
Sure, it's always been a business, but it's MORE than that and shouldn't necessarily be treated exactly the same. It's a little more important to control what goes into our bodies than just what sells the cheapest commodity... Everyone should be able to eat quality food without having to mortgage their house for it. That's just fucked.

 

I'm saying there is no 'sickness', which is a word you poorly define and allude to in an attempt to shroud all of modern agriculture in a the most bombastic form possible.

Yes, there are environmental consequences to farming, huge ones, but we need to mitigate them, not treat farming as if it's a luxury. The way to mitigate environmental damage from agriculture is not to go to pre industrial revolution agrarian practices.

 

And I agree with this. I think it proves my thesis, which is, the problem of hunger isn't a food shortage issue, it's an issue of poverty.

 

it sucks...but this actually surprises you?

 

Well sure.

So the elevated cancer rates are a myth and high fructose corn syrup is good for you. Okay then.
I never said farming is a luxury. I said it's a bigger responsibility than just turning a profit. You're feeding the nation- someone's child- your own family. You should be turning out quality, not chemically "enhanced" shit.

 

Scooby snax all round!

 

I'm saying you have no proof that elevated cancer rates are caused by modern agriculture methods, and you could site no peer reviewed evidence proving that statement. I never said that HFCS is good for you, and that seems like a separate issue.

If you agree that poverty is the cause of homelessness, than I don't really have much more to say. I don't agree with you on your pet issue, and I think it should be a separate thread.

 

I don't care to spend the time on it, so nope, no separate thread and no extensive list of peer-reviewed articles. I know what I've read. I don't necessarily save it all forever. You don't agree with me, that's fine. I'm just too lazy tonight, man. Sorry, I know that's gotta be a letdown after the buildup, but I've got finals coming up and projects to work on. I only brought it up because someone mentioned the poor quality of cheap foods, which seem to be the only thing available to the poor, thus the reason they are in poor health. I thought that was part of the topic.
On the subject of HFCS, I brought it up because it wouldn't be in everything if the corn refiners didn't have to push it like crack because of the corn surplus. After the Great Depression, there was a law passed that farmers would be paid for growing corn no matter what the market looked like, so to survive, farmers continue to grow tons and tons of corn, flooding the market with cheap, low-quality corn that has to go somewhere, so it goes into a chemically altered sweetener that is very hard to avoid, especially for those with lower income that can't afford the pricier items produced without it for those who have requested it. Cancer rates and obesity have risen dramatically since its introduction into the market in the '70s.
It's also obvious that the massive pollution as a result of all of our sick cows which were NOT made to digest corn in the quantities we are shoving it down their throats and the chemical fertilizer seeping into groundwater would have something to do with cancer rates as well. I don't need to cite it. It's common sense that you can't ingest a steady diet of these synthetics without some kind of repercussions. You doubt that, you can look it up yourself.
Like I said, I don't remember exactly where all of this came from (I did my final project on it for my Food in Society class), but a lot of it is from The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan if you care to dissect it yourself. He has plenty of references in the back of the book to back up his claims.

If I'm gumming up the thread, I'll stop. I think I was justified in adding to the subject even if it got a little off track in places.

 

One in 5 smoke cigarettes,coincidence? Seems more blame falls on poor decisions/choices than the price of food. You could feed yourself for a day with what "they" spend per day on a pack of cigarettes.Not to mention all of the other bad habits people have.
And of course if you visit the worst parts of the US an then conclude "it must be like this in all states" only shows the Authors bias.

Over 443,000 Americans (over 18 percent of all deaths) die because of smoking each year. Secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 of them.

How many people in the USA die from hunger per year?

Homeless is too strong a word, lets call it "rough sleeping". problem solved.

 

as a past homeless person--food was everywhere---thats what every charity did --food--you get fat being homeless----its not soo bad actually beter than prison not as good as your own place---live in dorms or on the street if your really hard core--stay wasted is the usual coping mechanism--although there is mental illness and just some folks that hit hard times---homeless in new-orlens b4 katrina and homeless in Denver--became a crack head for a minet--that shit will make anyone homeless--lol