The OP's statistic implies that 1/4 of Americans are in danger of going hungry or starving. That's not true for the kind of person I just described even though they would be included in the OP's statistic. When push comes to shove, the kind of person I described could cut out a lot of amentities and luxuries in their life if they actually found themselves facing starvation. I'm willing to wager that a significant portion of that 25% fit into this category. Not all, but a significant portion.
From the article.....
I may not be an Obama fan but I'm not one of the "get rid of government" people either. I don't feel that anyone in America should not be able to eat. That being said, I find this to be very subjective with its implication that somebody actually had zero food for any of 3 meals a day. I live in a poor zip code and I rent to low income people, all of whom have a net worth of LESS THAN ZERO. I know that they pay their rent from paycheck to paycheck and I rnt way below market. Yet, I don't know that any of them are actually hungry - as in had nothing to eat. I know that in Sudan and Etiopia there are people actually starving. But I'm curious if anybody here knows of anyone who could not eat today for lack of resources.The United States is a clear outlier from this pattern. Despite being the richest country in the survey, nearly a quarter of Americans (24%) say they had trouble putting food on the table in the past 12 months. This reported level of deprivation is closer to that in Indonesia or Greece rather than Britain or Canada.
I have tenants who don't have cars or smart phones. They might have a basic cell phone. They might be near having their utilities turned off. They sure don't have money management skills. But hungry?
I'm in this thread to learn, not to challenge the OP. I'm more interested in anecdotal evidence rather than links to agenda based publications.
Despite the propaganda, most of our food inequities are a result of high unemployment rates, the shrinking of the middle class, and the gutting of public systems.
Some will rebut this by saying that it's our social spending which accounts for the greater burden, but that's not the original source of our burden. We were able to support all our social systems, including social security, prior to the Bush tax cuts for top corporate businesses and the wealthy. Before I'm accused of being partisan, Obama renewed those tax cuts and I was also against it then.
Because the wealthy have tax immunity right now, the only place left to take from is the middle class. The pittance that most people on welfare receive from the government every month is usually only enough for rent, if that. The social stigma that people are living it up on the government dime is so overplayed that I'm nauseated every time I hear it. Try being a social worker and you will quickly find out the reality.
As for relief charities like food banks and shelters, there are simply not enough -- not in the way government can organize relief. It's like saying we should put disaster relief into the hands of charities. It just couldn't help everyone.
Our congress has been hijacked by corporations and the financial sector. Policy is made for them now. Isn't it obvious? Obama is not a socialist. He is part and parcel with the globalists, and Bush who came before him.
2001 spending on social systems - 1.2 trillion
2012 - 2.3 trillion
It all goes back to what the financial elites are doing to this country. More people on the tit of government because the government turned its back on responsible monetary policy, something which Bush exacerbated and Obama followed through on when we gave trillions to Wallstreet.
If we really have people without enough to eat, it is not the fault of the federal government spending too little on welfare:
Read more: Govt spent $1.028 trillion on welfare in FY 2011 | The Daily CallerThe government spent approximately $1.03 trillion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011 alone — a price tag that makes welfare that year the government’s largest expenditure, according to new data released by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee.
Figuring a hundred million taxpayers, which is not exact, but close enough for government work, that is ten thousand dollars each on average.
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?