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...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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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.

[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.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by tater

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?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by 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."

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]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

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!

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.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by 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.

They already do.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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!