Accept what you want, I cited my source, feel free to cite contrary reports.

MasonM, the report included page after page on their methods. "53,000 hand picked interviews" is not an accurate representation, they supported their numbers based on a lot of data collected from numerous sources, but I am not going to try to persuade you as the accuracy of it.

We began with "I don't see any facts" and I replied by citing a report. In my estimation we have now moved into that wonderful realm of cognitive dissonance, where your personal experiences are going to outweigh whatever I offer. Okay. There is no hunger in America, reports to the contrary, because you saw a fat man the other day. I am ready to move on.

The target seems to have moved form "going without eating" to "starving to death." I thought that I spoke to that twice already, hunger in America is nowhere near as bad as in other places. Let me ask, does the proximate cause of death need to be starvation, or can malnutrition just be a contributing factor? There is an old "joke" in the newspaper business to the point that when one can't determine the cause of death, it is always safe to say that the heart stopped.

If an 80-year old woman dies who hasn't been eating, say for example, what does the coroner put down as the cause of death?

A report on hunger and obesity co-existing side by side can be found at Link The source is an article published in The Journal of Nutrition and written by Eileen Kennedy DSc, RD, dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.

BakerStreet, the largest groups identified as living in poverty are the elderly, particularly shut-ins, and children. Some additional "facts" that you can accept or not:

1) In 1994 the Urban Institute in Washington DC estimated that one out of 6 elderly people in the U.S. has an inadequate diet.
2) In the U.S. hunger and race are related. In 1991 46% of African-American children were chronically hungry, and 40% of Latino children were chronically hungry compared to 16% of white children.
3) The infant mortality rate is closely linked to inadequate nutrition among pregnant women. The U.S. ranks 23rd among industrial nations in infant mortality. African-American infants die at nearly twice the rate of white infants.
4) One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night.

I grabbed those from Link but I am pretty sure that the original source is the World Health Organization.

The difference I was pointing out, Kupe, is that a lot of that is by negligence or choice. It isn't going to matter how strong the economy is or what social services are available if your single mother is a meth whore and doesn't care about you.

There is absolutely, ZERO need for any child in America to go to bed hungry. None. One in eight children, are you seriously believing that? We qualified for BOTH food stamps AND WIC when we had our daughter, and we both had decent jobs, and we could afford tons of extras in our lives.

I'm betting cash that my diet would qualify as inadequate. Is it because I am "poor"? Nope, it is because I have little in the way of self control regarding junk food and I don't eat the way I should. The elderly have many, many options that they simply don't ever look into. Is it society's fault when they complacently starve themselves without trying to find out how they could avoid it?

If you want to talk about "poverty" in terms of the society it finds itself in, you have to address the fact that many, many people in the US could simply change their behavior and choose not to be poor, or seek help for their problems. That "fact" is conveniently left out of the lists of "facts" you find on poverty.

We have plenty of food in America, plenty available to feed the hungry. The problem is that the food is not always where the need is. I live in an affluent town. My Sunday School class used to volunteer at Food Gathers, an agency that helps address hunger in America. They had so many volunteers and so much food, they asked us not to come any more. But 35 miles away is Detroit. How do we get the food to the hungry?

There are ways to do it, but many of the people with the means won't do it.

I have said repeatedly that the best "fix" WalMart could give its sagging PR would be to partner with Second Harvest in helping the hungry. As it is, WalMart probably leads the world in gross tonnage of food needlessly dumped. I worked at WalMart enough to have dumped literally tons of food into the dumpster that the store management refused to give to the food banks. If WalMart would make such a partnership, their incredible distribution system could provide a ready fix to how to get the food where its most needed.

I'm not saying we shouldn't address the legitimate needs of 10 million, or even of one. As individuals, I feel it is our moral responsibility to help the less fortunate (note: OUR moral responsibility, NOT the government's). But we shouldn't beat ourselves over the head because we have a poverty "problem" in America when the majority of other countries would LOVE to have the affluence we have, even among the poor. My point was made because in so many countries, poor DOES mean starving...because there ARE people dying in some of these nations. The lack of those in America says that we're actually doing something RIGHT!

I would like to see how many illegal alien's kids go to bed hungry. People are killing themselves to come here, and working their butts off once they get here. The "facts" of poverty don't take into account child ABUSE and neglect, and self-abuse on the part of adults.

If they did, I believe devoutly those numbers would be infinitesimal. If people neglect themselves and their kids, the problem isn't poverty, is it?

There are ways to do it, but many of the people with the means won't do it.

Larry has some good points but one that is left unanswered in the study is in fact the case of the folks who simply won't be helped no matter what. I nice example from right here in town. There is a free shelter where anyone can go to get food, water, and shelter for as long as they need it. they do have one rule though : no drugs or alchohol. If you look high or drunk you can't be there. The result? Dozens of people who simply won't abide by that rule. Are they "poor" or "starving" due to a lack of aid? Nope.... they just refuse to behave. There are tons of these folks, the WIC moms who sell there WIC food for cigarette money or to satify whatever other comfort they crave.

This is my point. it isn't a lack of aid or availability of food or money that keeps the poor porr it is bad choices. Someone who doesn't drink, or do drugs or whathave you may end up "poor" for a while, say 6 months or a year where they are really only able to scrape by with assistance. Generally though that person will recover qickly as most of the people in the Kupe's study did. It is the remainder who are perpetually on assistance that have the bad habits.

We began with "I don't see any facts" and I replied by citing a report.

A report that in no way supports the claim to which we are objecting:

30 million Americans are so poor they don't eat every day. That's a fact.

I am not arguing that there are no hungry people in this country. I am, however, arguing that the problem is nowhere near as extreme as the absurd statement quoted above tries to state as a fact.

Let them eat cake!

Let them eat cake!

Yep, thats relevant, we are treating our people like the dead and dying of the French Revolution... oh wait, it isn't even in the same friggin universe.

Yep, thats relevant, we are treating our people like the dead and dying of the French Revolution... oh wait, it isn't even in the same friggin universe.

lol

"Let them do crack" would be more appropriate...

I liked the idea presented but I feel that there is a slight problem. Likes have to be compared to likes. In other words oranges with oranges. If you compare the middle class of 1971 with that of today I think its wealth may have increased by a certain percentage which can be tranlated into a segment of the national; wealth/income. Now the poor may have got more income today than say the middle class of the 1971 with a tearly income of around 7,500 to 10,000 US $. But in terme of the purchasing power parity of today's $ vis-a-vis the US $ of 1971 there is and will be a huge difference.

Inequality in society is measured by US sociologists using the kind of analysis I have indicated.

But in terme of the purchasing power parity of today's $ vis-a-vis the US $ of 1971 there is and will be a huge difference.

Actually, many conveniences have gotten CHEAPER Bahu. Let me give you an example: In 1997, you could purchase a good, stable (for Windows, at least) computer for $1,000. Today's equivalent goes for under $500 ($297 for a low end Dell plus another $200 for a decent monitor). While the cost of essentials may have risen slightly (many of those items not even close to the rate of inflation), the truth is that the costs of nonessentials has decreased enough that the quality of life of those able to afford more than just the barest essentials has GREATLY increased. You can buy a TV new for under $100, a DVD player for $20-40 (plus the $20 cost of an RF modulator for a low end TV), a low wattage stereo for under $50...the list goes on. Granted, these aren't state of the art appliances, but are you really arguing that the poor deserve 52" HDTV's, stereo surround sound and DVD revorders?

Even as for the cost of essentials such as groceries I can make a compelling argument that the costs haven't increased substantially. I can feed a family of 7 on less than $300 a month and eat well, simply by being frugal. The main culprit in increased cost of living is property values in our larger cities; not only are there ways around that, there are plenty of places one can move where the COL is substantially LOWER. Add to that the fact that, while you will pay substantially more to live in a big city such as Chicago, you can exist without owning a car in big cities such as these. Your added housing costs can be offset by decreased transportation costs.

I can feed a family of 7 on less than $300 a month and eat well, simply by being frugal

$300/month/7people<$1.43/person/day.

The best you can do with that huge sum of money is to buy 6 buns or one small loaf of bread (the large one costs $1.99). I guess that is what you call eating well. No wonder that we are the greatest country that ever existed on the face of the Earth. We can make facts out of illusions. No one else ever done that. The dream of every superpower that ever existed. we just say it and snap our fingers and here it is ..... real things out of nothing.

Thinkaloud: Check your math again. You don't have to buy a loaf of bread for each person per day, do you? Like you say, a loaf of bread is $1.99. Dozen eggs are a dollar or so. Canned vegetables 2 for a dollar. Yadda yadda.

Gideon is talking about on average. Go check the prices on rice, beens, chicken, etc. You sound like someone who hasn't bought many groceries, or never had to pinch pennies and clip coupons.

The best you can do with that huge sum of money is to buy 6 buns or one small loaf of bread (the large one costs $1.99). I guess that is what you call eating well. No wonder that we are the greatest country that ever existed on the face of the Earth. We can make facts out of illusions. No one else ever done that. The dream of every superpower that ever existed. we just say it and snap our fingers and here it is ..... real things out of nothing.

Chicken: 39 cents a pound. Ten pounds of leg quarters, $3.90. We get about three meals out of that.

Tuna: 50 cents a can.

Macaroni and cheese: 33 cents a box.

Bread: 85 cents a loaf for WHOLE GRAIN bread. Oh, that's right, apparently whole grain bread's only nutritious if you DON'T get it at the thrift store! Once it goes on sale, it loses its nutritional value. Gotcha.

Baking mix (generic Bisquik) $1.99 a box. About three days' worth of pancakes out of that.

Vegetable oil: $5.00 a gallon.

Vegetables: 40 cents a can. Frozen vegetables about a buck a pound.

Have you heard of flour, sugar, baking soda, baking powder? Are you aware a good cookbook can be had for under $20 and that homemade foods cost SIGNIFICANTLY less to make than processed foods?

My family eats quite well, ThinkAloud. I've done the math, and what I buy for $300, most people would probably buy for $500-600. I buy in bulk, I buy generic unless a brand name is cheaper, I shop the sales, and guess what? My family also gets fresh fruits and vegetables (there's this really, innovative new idea called "gardening" you might want to check out. It's quite the fad.

The truth is, ThinkAloud, many Americans don't HAVE the money you insist it is necessary to feed their families. We can, and do, make do quite well by knowing how to BUDGET (another innovative idea).

I just gave you very REAL prices. These are sample prices of some of the items I regularly purchase. All are nutritious, and none of these are "6 rolls or a loaf of bread". For pete's sake, think aloud...you're paying 2 1/2 times what I am for bread, and I bet it isn't even WHOLE GRAIN!

Here's a sample of how we shop. Part of last week's grocery trip:

15 boxes macaroni and cheese at 5 for $1.00 (total: $3.00)

24 cans tomato sauce at 5 for $1.00 (total: $4.80)

36 cans vegetables (12 corn, 12 green beans, 12 mixed veggies) at 3 for $0.89 (total: $10.68)

2 boxes of oatmeal at $1.00 apiece (total: $2.00)

5 pounds polish sausage at $1.00 a pound (total: $5.00)

3 packages hot dogs at 69 cents each (total: $2.07)

24 rolls toilet paper at 2 12 roll packages for $4.00 (total: $4.00)

1 head of lettuce at $1.49

4 packages of salad at 50 cents each (total: $2.00)

2 green peppers at 79 cents each (total: $1.58)

A pound of carrots for $1

2 3 pound boxes of pasta for 99 cents each (total: $1.98)

20 navel oranges for $2.00

a pound of bananas for 50 cents.

Total: $42.10 (plus tax)

Does that sound like junk to you? Those aren't stats pulled out of my ass; I have receipts if you'd like them. Now, granted, there are some things we ate that came out of the pantry,  but there are some items on this list where we have substantially more than a week's supply. It all balances out.