Why We’re Fasting

[Gerald]

I stopped eating on Monday and joined around 4,000 other people in a fast to call attention to Congressional budget proposals that would make huge cuts in programs for the poor and hungry.

By doing so, I surprised myself; after all, I eat for a living. But the decision was easy after I spoke last week with David Beckmann, a reverend who is this year’s World Food Prize laureate. Our conversation turned, as so many about food do these days, to the poor.

Who are — once again — under attack, this time in the House budget bill, H.R. 1. The budget proposes cuts in the WIC program (which supports women, infants and children), in international food and health aid (18 million people would be immediately cut off from a much-needed food stream, and 4 million would lose access to malaria medicine) and in programs that aid farmers in underdeveloped countries. Food stamps are also being attacked, in the twisted “Welfare Reform 2011” bill. (There are other egregious maneuvers in H.R. 1, but I’m sticking to those related to food.)

These supposedly deficit-reducing cuts — they’d barely make a dent — will quite literally cause more people to starve to death, go to bed hungry or live more miserably than are doing so now. And: The bill would increase defense spending.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/why-were-fasting/?src=me&ref=general

Note: March 29, 2011, 10:28 pm

[gimpy117]

As if republicans care about the poor in this country. GM has to make more war profits without paying taxes!

I could go into some long some Long multi-paragraph reply to this, but I won't, because the writing is on the wall. Republicans want a balanced budget, But seem to be obsessed with doing that by taking it out on the poor and middle class; the very people they should be trying to bolster, the very people that were hit hardest by the recession. It shows that The GOP is the best of the best government money can buy.

[tater]

I don't buy the idea so many are hungry I the US. I recall hearing that officially the US uses "food insecurity'" but that the nutritious quality is invalid in a complex way. This means that many foods that are fattening, for example, don't count. Hence fat poor people being called "food insecure."

[tater]

Gimpy is predictably irrational. The budget is grossly out of balance, and the vast majority is social program spending, not defense. Go to walmart. Look at the poor. They look hungry to you? Didn't think so.

[UnderseaLcpl]

As if republicans care about the poor in this country. GM has to make more war profits without paying taxes!
And you think the Democrats care? Why? Because they say they do? Look at their party leadership. Now and in the past. Look at how they live and have lived. Does that strike you as leadership that cares about the poor?

Better yet, look at what they've actually done for the poor. The initiatives brought about by the "war on poverty" have not fixed poverty. One of the most popular things for Dems to complain about is distribution of wealth.

As a party, they don't care about the poor or the middle class any more than Republicans do. It's just a vote-garnering platform, which is exactly what you get when you have parties put in place by votes.

Don't blame the parties. They're just doing exactly what we asked them to do. What we designed them to do. Blame the system we insisted upon while we were trying to protect ourselves by turning to government.


I could go into some long some Long multi-paragraph reply to this, but I won't, because the writing is on the wall. Republicans want a balanced budget, But seem to be obsessed with doing that by taking it out on the poor and middle class; the very people they should be trying to bolster, the very people that were hit hardest by the recession. It shows that The GOP is the best of the best government money can buy.


Please do go into a long-multi-paragraph reply. I enjoy the discourse and I can always use the perspective. I suspect you could use some as well. The truth is that the government as a whole is one of the best governments money can buy. Virtually everything else, including the perspective of the article's author, is nothing more than the result of politicization of issues that government never fixes.

[gimpy117]

Gimpy is predictably irrational. The budget is grossly out of balance, and the vast majority is social program spending, not defense. Go to walmart. Look at the poor. They look hungry to you? Didn't think so.

So its Ok to cut social programs but raise defense spending? This isn't balancing the budget...its cutting social programs to the people for corporate interests.

also, I don't deny that there are plenty of Liberals in corporate pockets too...but look what party is pushing through all these bills. Thats why I said "best of the best government money can buy" they aren't the sole bought off politicians...but they sure are the stand outs.

[MothBalls]

I don't buy the idea so many are hungry I the US. I recall hearing that officially the US uses "food insecurity'" but that the nutritious quality is invalid in a complex way. This means that many foods that are fattening, for example, don't count. Hence fat poor people being called "food insecure."

I'd like to correct you on this. I personally know a few people who used the WIC program. To qualify you have to have children between the ages of 0-5. It was intended to provide nutritional foods to children during their important development years. It's not like food stamps or welfare, and it only provides nutritional foods. The products that can be purchased or provided by WIC are basically milk, juices, and fruits and vegetables, etc. It's a worthwhile program.

Of course with any Government run program there may be some abuses, but for those who actually need it, it's one of the better ones we have.

And yes there are many hungry families and children in the US. That's a sore sport for many, including me. At the same time we are spending literally billions to help the rest of the world, our own people are going hungry. I've seen it with my own eyes. It pisses me off to no end.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'd like to correct you on this. I personally know a few people who used the WIC program. To qualify you have to have children between the ages of 0-5. It was intended to provide nutritional foods to children during their important development years. It's not like food stamps or welfare, and it only provides nutritional foods. The products that can be purchased or provided by WIC are basically milk, juices, and fruits and vegetables, etc. It's a worthwhile program.

Of course with any Government run program there may be some abuses, but for those who actually need it, it's one of the better ones we have.

And yes there are many hungry families and children in the US. That's a sore sport for many, including me. At the same time we are spending literally billions to help the rest of the world, our own people are going hungry. I've seen it with my own eyes. It pisses me off to no end.


Agreed on WIC. Dead on!

Agreed on the billions 'served' outside our borders. Charity begins at home as they say. Kids specifically!

[The Third Man]

So others have seen through this opinion piece also. Its not the folks in the US who will be without food it is those who have been on the tit of the US which now have to find another tit to suckle from. Let other nations (EU nations) contribute more of their GDP. :yeah:

[gimpy117]

Agreed on WIC. Dead on!

Agreed on the billions 'served' outside our borders. Charity begins at home as they say. Kids specifically!

but it's soo trendy to send all of our money and food to Africa!

[Armistead]

The problem will remain. The meager 20 billion the Dems want to cut out of over a trillion dollar budget will be spent in Libya, so that's gone.

Congress will never do the right thing with cuts. We need to shut down 100 or more leftover cold war military bases in Europe. We need to scrap public union benefits in line with the private sector except for those that put their lives on the line. We need corporate regulations, less tax shelters for them.

Problem is the GOP wants a corporate state where 5% will control 90% of all wealth, the Dems want a social state where that 5% pays for the rest of us, both fail terribly....

Oh, both sides could make the right cuts and solve things, but that would be working together and power sharing, ain't gonna happen, why things will get worse. Any recovery will always pander to a few and be ready to collapse with just one crisis.....

[The Third Man]

Agreed...pull all US forces, other than NATO Command/non- combatant (SHAPE) personel and allow the Europeans fend for themselves militarily. By their own admission they aren't in harms way. Hell, many don't even pay the 2% of GDP they are compelled by treaty to contribute.

BTW let them defend their own oil in Lybia. No blood for oil....unless its for Europe of coarse.

[tater]

So its Ok to cut social programs but raise defense spending? This isn't balancing the budget...its cutting social programs to the people for corporate interests.

also, I don't deny that there are plenty of Liberals in corporate pockets too...but look what party is pushing through all these bills. Thats why I said "best of the best government money can buy" they aren't the sole bought off politicians...but they sure are the stand outs.

Where did I say that?

Obama is overspending by over 1 trillion PER YEAR right now. ~1.3 or so, right?

Defense is 500 B$ or so. So cut defense to 300B (a 40% cut), and the remaining trillion from the majority of the budget, which is social crap.

[tater]

I'd like to correct you on this. I personally know a few people who used the WIC program. To qualify you have to have children between the ages of 0-5. It was intended to provide nutritional foods to children during their important development years. It's not like food stamps or welfare, and it only provides nutritional foods. The products that can be purchased or provided by WIC are basically milk, juices, and fruits and vegetables, etc. It's a worthwhile program.

Of course with any Government run program there may be some abuses, but for those who actually need it, it's one of the better ones we have.

And yes there are many hungry families and children in the US. That's a sore sport for many, including me. At the same time we are spending literally billions to help the rest of the world, our own people are going hungry. I've seen it with my own eyes. It pisses me off to no end.

Where to start. One, I was arguing against the bogus notion that one in seven (or whatever they say) Americans are hungry. That's rubbish. Are there some hungry? Sure. Is the number even remotely close to what they claim? No. Based on their stats, basically 50% of the people in the US who are NOT obese are "hungry." Do you really think that that is true? Look around, you think 50% of the people who are not tubs of goo are poor? Odd considering that the poor are more likely to be obese in the US.

Two, no one with internet access, or cable TV, or any other luxuries can really complain they cannot afford food. I'm fine with some programs to help little kids, but they need to make damn sure the family is not using the aid to allow them to spend money on other things that are not required to live. My dad was a little kid during the Depression. They handed down shoes from kid to kid (and clothes, etc). They were actually poor. I guarantee they were not spending $50 (in constant 2011 dollars, obviously) per month on whatever the possible equivalent of the net might have been. When I was growing up we were pretty well off, and we didn't have cable, my parents thought it was a waste of money, we went outside and played.

I checked, and the rules for WIC are an income of $40,793 a year or less for a family of 4. The average US income is ~48k. This program is hardly for the poor.

As for the little kids needing food... why have kids when you cannot feed them? Having kids is after all a choice (birth control is substantially less expensive than kids).

The reason stuff like this is on the table to cut is that no one has the balls to cut the 3 programs that really need to be cut (slashed, actually): Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

As far as I am concerned they should set the total budget to whatever last year's revenues were, and cut everything weighted to its % of last year's budget. If something was 31% of last year's budget, then 31% of the cuts required to 100% balance the budget should come from that program.

Seems like when they are asking for cash, or when they are trying to stir up support, they always use the "food insecurity" numbers. Turns out that anyone who during the past year had "the limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods" is in the food insecure pile. Note that "nutritionally adequate" means that if some month they bought too much junk food, they are "food insecure." The % who are actually hungry (“the uneasy or painful sensation caused by a lack of food.” (their definition)) according to the USDA is ~3.5%. Note that this is a pretty lousy metric, seems like a clinical diagnosis of malnutrition should apply—some fat kid without a lunchbox full of twinkies has a "uneasy or painful sensation caused by a lack of food.” How they feel shouldn't matter, it should be a simple matter of comparing their height to a chart of how many calories they get.

Anyway, cut the major budget problems, and this little program won't even notice the cut it deserves (some fraction of a % reduction is like it's "share" to be cut).

I had a friend at Treasury who worked on the EBT cards because the fraud rates were so huge. Dunno if they ever addressed the problem completely.

[Sailor Steve]

I stopped eating on Monday and joined around 4,000 other people in a fast to call attention to Congressional budget proposals that would make huge cuts in programs for the poor and hungry.
You did? Or the guy who wrote the article did? Sometimes these things are unclear.

[Platapus]

Go to walmart. Look at the poor. They look hungry to you? Didn't think so.

How about the people who can't afford to shop at Walmart? I bet they look hungry.

Since when did shopping at Walmart become a datapoint for who is or is not poor?

[AngusJS]

So others have seen through this opinion piece also. Its not the folks in the US who will be without food it is those who have been on the tit of the US which now have to find another tit to suckle from. Let other nations (EU nations) contribute more of their GDP. :yeah:They already do.

http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/3465/11netaidgdpchart.gif

[Skybird]

Maybe I am a damn Vulcan, but I never saw what is so convincing about actions like this.

[tater]

They already do.

http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/3465/11netaidgdpchart.gif

That chart is complete BS.

One, it doesn't account for the fact that private donations from Americans to world aid exceed the US government contribution. So the US is the number one (in dollars) aid contributor by government, AND the private sector in the US donates considerably more than the US government.

Two, it doesn't count non-monetary aid. What is the value put on the US Navy in that chart, for example? Need helicopters in Japan. OK, we got them—in the next day or two. How many CVs does Sweden operate in each of the world's oceans? Is that the primary purpose of the USN? Nope. But it is A purpose of the USN, and the only way to have ships all over the world is to have a multi-ocean navy. So what is the annual contribution of the entire USN since WW2? Ditto for the USAF. Dwarfs the rest.

Three, a % is completely meaningless. Sweden gives almost 1% Wow! That's 4 billion dollars. We give closer to 30 billion, not counting intangibles like, you know, having a navy that can help people everywhere on earth. The total dollars is all that matters, not the %.

Four, we spend more on "aid" to Europe defending it (so that they can spend far less of their GDP on defense than we do) than places like Sweden spend on aid totally. The chart doesn't seem to include that.

[gimpy117]

Three, a % is completely meaningless. Sweden gives almost 1% Wow! That's 4 billion dollars. We give closer to 30 billion, not counting intangibles like, you know, having a navy that can help people everywhere on earth. The total dollars is all that matters, not the %.

Four, we spend more on "aid" to Europe defending it (so that they can spend far less of their GDP on defense than we do) than places like Sweden spend on aid totally. The chart doesn't seem to include that.

and defending Europe is our problem?

also, so what about Private donations. It just goes th show the Government isn't ponying up.

[tater]

How about the people who can't afford to shop at Walmart? I bet they look hungry.

Since when did shopping at Walmart become a datapoint for who is or is not poor?

It's not, but WIC goes up to incomes we might not consider "poor." As I said, a family of 4 can have 40k a year and qualify. How "poor" that is is very location dependent.

[gimpy117]

i can tell you that 30K on a family of 3 is pretty bare bones

[tater]

and defending Europe is our problem?

also, so what about Private donations. It just goes th show the Government isn't ponying up.

We have no problem. My point is that Europe pays less on her own defense, because we pay for them. We're talking about a fraction of a % of GDP. We easily spend that much on "excess" defense of the ETO, freeing them to give a pittance to foreign aid unfettered by realistic defense costs.

The government IS the people. That's the point. In your typical way, you want the government to confiscate money to donate as it wishes, instead of letting the people actually decide. All that matters is what we give. The US gives more than 2X what that chart shows do to private contributions. We are the number one contributor in dollars. The ability to use military assets for relief is incalculable... it alone is worth what we spend in cash. How much do YOU give, or do you merely whine that other people's money should be taken, and given away to another country?

PS—a surprisingly large amount of "bailout" money in fact went to foreign banks. More than all the aid contributions of all other countries combined (and combined for several years). That in the chart?

[gimpy117]

We have no problem. My point is that Europe pays less on her own defense, because we pay for them. We're talking about a fraction of a % of GDP. We easily spend that much on "excess" defense of the ETO, freeing them to give a pittance to foreign aid unfettered by realistic defense costs.


see i don't think so. were not so much defending Europe as we are sticking our nose into other people's business

[Bakkels]

What the hell are you talking about 'defending Europe'? From what?
And a large part of the bailout money went to foreign banks?? I'd sure like to see some proof of that. What's next? Europe is the cause of the financial crisis?
Well thanks for a good laugh anyway....

[Sailor Steve]

It just goes th show the Government isn't ponying up.
Government? Pony up? When are you finally going to figure out that government, by nature has NO money? At all? It only has what it can take...from the private sector. Any money the Government "ponies up" it first has to take from you. If the Government gives enough there won't be any private sector left for it to take money from. Then there will be no economy, and you'll blame "the other side", whoever that may be when there are no sides left.

[The Third Man]

^^^ This

[gimpy117]

Government? Pony up? When are you finally going to figure out that government, by nature has NO money? At all? It only has what it can take...from the private sector. Any money the Government "ponies up" it first has to take from you. If the Government gives enough there won't be any private sector left for it to take money from. Then there will be no economy, and you'll blame "the other side", whoever that may be when there are no sides left.

yes, but i was meaning more that it tends to like to spend vast amounts on killing people rather than helping our own citizens.

[The Third Man]

yes, but i was meaning more that it tends to like to spend vast amounts on killing people rather than helping our own citizens.

It is difficult to make an argument that the gov't doesn't take care of its citizens.

Even defense spending takes care of citizens by allowing the other spending to occur.

[Sailor Steve]

yes, but i was meaning more that it tends to like to spend vast amounts on killing people rather than helping our own citizens.
There is some merit to that. On the other hand, a lot of that is spent being prepared when others call for help. While we can debate whether that is really necessary, if those 'others' want that kind of help, they really aren't in a good position to point out how little we spend on other kinds of help.

[AngusJS]

That chart is complete BS.

One, it doesn't account for the fact that private donations from Americans to world aid exceed the US government contribution. So the US is the number one (in dollars) aid contributor by government, AND the private sector in the US donates considerably more than the US government.Do you have figures for private donations in those countries? Then what are you talking about?

And say Swedish private sector donations are lower than ours. Maybe that's because they pay higher taxes, and their government gives out the aid from that?

Two, it doesn't count non-monetary aid. What is the value put on the US Navy in that chart, for example? Need helicopters in Japan. OK, we got them—in the next day or two. How many CVs does Sweden operate in each of the world's oceans? Is that the primary purpose of the USN? Nope. But it is A purpose of the USN, and the only way to have ships all over the world is to have a multi-ocean navy. So what is the annual contribution of the entire USN since WW2? Ditto for the USAF. Dwarfs the rest.Damn countries with a fraction of our population not having a navy like ours! And stupid Austria, Luxembourg and Switzerland don't have any navy at all! The nerve!

And do you really think a few helos here and there are relevant enough to include in the graph?

Three, a % is completely meaningless. Sweden gives almost 1% Wow! That's 4 billion dollars. We give closer to 30 billion, not counting intangibles like, you know, having a navy that can help people everywhere on earth. The total dollars is all that matters, not the %.Mega facepalm. No, it's the % GDP that actually matters, for obvious reasons - otherwise you're just criticizing other countries for not being as rich as we are.

[tater]

Nope, sorry, it's the total amount that matters. A % of GDP is meaningless for the person GETTING the aid. The % thing is nothing more than an arbitrary way of saying your e-peen is bigger.

Again, for the people in need of aid, the amount is ALL that matters. If you don't get as much as you need, it's no solace that it's a higher % of the donor nation's GDP.

As for it coming out of your higher taxes, duh, exactly. The list is saying that money given after being taken by higher taxes is valued, and money given voluntarily is less valued (in fact, not valued at all). To the people getting aid, they don't care. So 27B$ from the USA, and 35B$ from the people of the USA, but less than half counts.

And yeah, my statement about the Navy absolutely penalizes countries without worldwide navies, that was the point. A helo costs maybe $4000/hr to operate. So if you call our donated aid flights only worth that, it's chump change, you are correct... but the only reason those helos are there is 60+ years of having the largest navy one earth. No massive USN, and there is no pittance of aid contributed by those helos at all, because they are parked (the handful that exist) at some home base in the US (ie: useless for world aid). What seems like so little is in fact only there because of the entire infrastructure of having that navy. Seems like nothing til you are starving or freezing and a helo comes out of the sky with blankets and food—then it's priceless.

My point was that in monetizing a list like that, you need to weight contributions that are not strictly monetary. I'm willing to discuss how much we all think having aid moments away from everywhere on Earth is actually worth—though I think looking at it from the eyes of the Tsunami victim in Japan (or Banda Aceh) is important. IMHO, it's an insurance with a huge premium, but a relatively small payout. Sorta like paying for the fire department. So far in my life I've never needed the FD. Not even as a kid did we. Nor has my wife. So 3 family's taxes (all on the higher end of taxation) and no payout. Say we had a response come this year that cost the FD $5000. Our family's contributions for that small response would have been many, many times that 5k (particularly in constant dollars). The US military is just such "insurance."

Lists like that are designed to paint the US as a bunch of bastards, nothing else, and it's BS.