• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Child Starvation and Malnutrition a Significant Problem in the US?

SouthernDemocrat said:
There were food riots in the Great Depression prior to the New Deal.

Progressive Historians: History For Our Future
Click to expand...

This is what the article says near the beginning:

"There was no violence that day, so calling it a riot may not have been the best description.
However, it remains significant for one reason - it was the first, and last, food riot that the national media reported."

The media reported every strike but not a single food riot? :confused:

Do you have anything a little more reputable and convincing? Pictures would help too.
 
LowDown said:
I've heard that there are people who believe this is the case.
Click to expand...
Starvation no but malnutrition certainly. Obesity is commonly evidence of a form of malnutrition.
 
LowDown said:
I've heard that there are people who believe this is the case.
Click to expand...

I have had this discussion with them before.
All said and told, they would rather believe the charts, graphs, and internet writings than their own eyes.

There is not anywhere in this country I cannot get a full belly on $5.
and children can be fed for $3 or less.
Every fast food place now has a dollar menu.
For two kids, you can get four hamburgers, & one large drink with two straws for about $6.
You can make all the return trips you want to, to the soda fountain to refill that large drink.
In Texas Wendy's has a $1 Texas burger that is pretty good sized.
When my kids were young, I would take them there, (I had three) get five of them, 1 large drink w/three straws, & two orders of fries.
You invert a drink lid, fill it with ketchup, dump all the fries in the try, and let them be little piggies. There are two extra hamburgers in case one or another of them is extra hungry.

Afterward, they all got small Frosties.

The whole bill as something like $12 to $16

I also said, if a kid DOES go hungry it is because the parents spent the money on booze, beer, cigarettes, or drugs.

It is NOT due to a lack of food.
 
reinoe said:
Yes, but I only say that because it's embarrassing that we're spending billions upon billions of dollars providing foreign aid to places like Saudi Arabia, training terrorists in Syria, and propping up Europeans when there are American children suffering from hunger here in this country. Even if there are very few American children suffering, it's still too many considering the money we squander on things far less important.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The cost of one F-35 fighter could solve any real or perceived hunger problem overnight.
 
JC Callender said:
This is what the article says near the beginning:

"There was no violence that day, so calling it a riot may not have been the best description.
However, it remains significant for one reason - it was the first, and last, food riot that the national media reported."

The media reported every strike but not a single food riot? :confused:

Do you have anything a little more reputable and convincing? Pictures would help too.
Click to expand...

Sure, pictures from the early years of the Great Depression:

6a56a352dc3ca960ec3c169f56f6efb7.jpg

depression_hunger_marchers_intro300px.jpg

Here is an article about a food riot in my home state of Arkansas: England Food Riot of 1931 - Encyclopedia of Arkansas

From an NPR Article:

Unemployment led to violence and revolt. In the United States, food riots broke out in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and across the central and southwestern states.
Click to expand...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100940580

Seriously, you ever talked to anyone that lived through the Great Depression?
 

Attachments

  • depression-starvation-1.jpg
    depression-starvation-1.jpg
    17 KB · Views: 61
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sure, pictures from the early years of the Great Depression:

View attachment 67210555

View attachment 67210557

Here is an article about a food riot in my home state of Arkansas: England Food Riot of 1931 - Encyclopedia of Arkansas

From an NPR Article:



'Lords' And Lessons From The Great Depression : NPR

Seriously, you ever talked to anyone that lived through the Great Depression?
Click to expand...

Why are you continuing with the "England Food Riots" when your article from your last post debunked it? :confused: And what's the context of the women with the kids laying on the ground, where is it? What circumstances would there be for a photographer to show a child's penis in a picture if it wasn't for gratuitous sympathy? What kind of photographer wouldn't take his/her own shirt off and give it to the child? A critically malnourished child doesn't look like the kids in the picture with their mom, they look like kids in the bottom picture, which btw, can you please give me a link to that bottom picture? I ask because when I searched for pictures of starving people during the Great Depression, I couldn't find any pictures like that from the U.S., but did find some from the Soviet Union.

One more thing, I started to read your last article and fortunately found out after only a minute in that it isn't credible so I'm not going to read your NPR article unless you summarize it fairly first.
 
Starvation no. Malnutrition yes, because some parents feed their kids crap.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
DA60 said:
More than 44 million Americans are on food stamps. Obviously a huge percentage of those are children.

The fact that millions and millions of children in America might starve/go hungry without government assistance is a 'significant problem'.

Plus, if a child is on food stamps and has special dietary needs...odds are they are not getting proper nutrition.

Plus, though food stamps gives enough money to eat properly...it does not provide enough for many fresh fruits or vegetables; everything pretty much has to be canned/boxed.
Click to expand...
I suspect this is where the OP was going with their question.

We always hear how x-percentage or number of school kids "go hungry", and that's why we need large paid lunch programs, and so on. Problem is, no one has ever defined even loosely what "go hungry" means, or how they arrived at the numbers. There have been plenty of time in my life when I didn't get enough at dinner and was still "hungry" when I went to bed, but I certainly wasn't in any danger of physical deterioration or starvation, or whatever. I probably could have said I was hungry one night and thus been lumped in with that group.

Of course there are legit cases, but I question how many relative to the implication that it is widespread. I suspect that it's a term that is intentionally left vague to promote an agenda and/or prop up a bureaucracy. No one wants kids to "go hungry", right?
 
radcen said:
I suspect this is where the OP was going with their question.

We always hear how x-percentage or number of school kids "go hungry", and that's why we need large paid lunch programs, and so on. Problem is, no one has ever defined even loosely what "go hungry" means, or how they arrived at the numbers. There have been plenty of time in my life when I didn't get enough at dinner and was still "hungry" when I went to bed, but I certainly wasn't in any danger of physical deterioration or starvation, or whatever. I probably could have said I was hungry one night and thus been lumped in with that group.

Of course there are legit cases, but I question how many relative to the implication that it is widespread. I suspect that it's a term that is intentionally left vague to promote an agenda and/or prop up a bureaucracy. No one wants kids to "go hungry", right?
Click to expand...

Of course. It's an emotional plea, not a rational one. It's what happens when they have no actual data to back up their claims. It's the "think of the children!" moment because they have nothing else to present. It's the same reason why all of the charities put pictures of starving children on TV, so people will get depressed and fork over their money. To paraphrase Sam Kinnison, there has to be a camera crew there filming, it isn't like they couldn't give the kid a sandwich, but they need him to look hungry!
 
JC Callender said:
Then you should easily be able to find some pictures of starving, skin and bone Americans during the Great Depression. I tried that and couldn't find any. Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

There were a large number of kids (mostly boys) "cut loose" from the family to fend for themselves during the Great Depression.

My father was one who lived back then and had plenty of stories about what it was like then. And yes, they were dirt poor. Dinner was often a couple of pancakes since flour was available cheap. Meat was a luxury when you could get it.
 
radcen said:
I suspect this is where the OP was going with their question.

We always hear how x-percentage or number of school kids "go hungry", and that's why we need large paid lunch programs, and so on. Problem is, no one has ever defined even loosely what "go hungry" means, or how they arrived at the numbers. There have been plenty of time in my life when I didn't get enough at dinner and was still "hungry" when I went to bed, but I certainly wasn't in any danger of physical deterioration or starvation, or whatever. I probably could have said I was hungry one night and thus been lumped in with that group.

Of course there are legit cases, but I question how many relative to the implication that it is widespread. I suspect that it's a term that is intentionally left vague to promote an agenda and/or prop up a bureaucracy. No one wants kids to "go hungry", right?
Click to expand...

My major point is that 44 million Americans on food stamps (a huge percentage of them children) is absolutely ridiculous.

And it is FAR worse then it was even AFTER the Great Recession ended.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf

Something is VERY messed up on this and not nearly enough effort is being expended to find the cure, imo.
 
Fledermaus said:
There were a large number of kids (mostly boys) "cut loose" from the family to fend for themselves during the Great Depression.

My father was one who lived back then and had plenty of stories about what it was like then. And yes, they were dirt poor. Dinner was often a couple of pancakes since flour was available cheap. Meat was a luxury when you could get it.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that. From what I've read, they weren't starving to death though, and there's a difference imo. When there's absolutely no food, like when a country has a famine, then I can see the government stepping in to help. Otherwise it's not impossible to survive, just much harder, and hard times often challenge people and make them better. The WW2 generation is often thought of as the "Greatest Generation", and I have no doubt much of their character is attributed to what they gleaned from the hardships of the 1930's.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sure, pictures from the early years of the Great Depression:

View attachment 67210555

View attachment 67210557

Here is an article about a food riot in my home state of Arkansas: England Food Riot of 1931 - Encyclopedia of Arkansas

From an NPR Article:



'Lords' And Lessons From The Great Depression : NPR

Seriously, you ever talked to anyone that lived through the Great Depression?
Click to expand...

I have. My parents, both in their 90's. My father wouldn't eat rice for DECADES, because during the depression when they did eat they mostly ate rice every day, week after week, month after month because that's all they had, because that's all they could afford.

And yes they both knew neighbors and people who died, maybe not strictly from starving to death, but the lack of nutrition and food made them weak and more easily open to getting disease and sickness.
 
Last edited:
SenorXm/Sirius said:
I have. My parents, both in their 90's. My father wouldn't eat rice for DECADES, because during the depression when they did eat they mostly ate rice every day, week after week, month after month because that's all they had, because that's all they could afford.

And yes they both knew neighbors and people who died, maybe not strictly from starving to death, but the lack of nutrition and food made them weak and more easily open to getting disease and sickness.
Click to expand...

My Grandfather was the same way about rice. Wouldn't touch it because thats all they ate in the 30s.
 
JC Callender said:
I don't doubt that. From what I've read, they weren't starving to death though, and there's a difference imo. When there's absolutely no food, like when a country has a famine, then I can see the government stepping in to help. Otherwise it's not impossible to survive, just much harder, and hard times often challenge people and make them better. The WW2 generation is often thought of as the "Greatest Generation", and I have no doubt much of their character is attributed to what they gleaned from the hardships of the 1930's.
Click to expand...
Ummmm,
Digital History
or
http://www.american-historama.org/1929-1945-depression-ww2-era/great-depression-poverty.htm
or
http://www.history.com/topics/great...s-and-breadlines/national-hunger-march-button
Strange you could find nothing on this in your search, I found these in seconds with many more to go along with them. Try Google next time.
 
Casper said:
Ummmm,
Digital History
or
Great Depression Poverty: US History for Kids ***
or
national-hunger-march-button - Soup Kitchens and Breadlines Pictures - The Great Depression - HISTORY.com
Strange you could find nothing on this in your search, I found these in seconds with many more to go along with them. Try Google next time.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I never heard the Great Depression described as a "famine", but okay...I guess I'll take your word for it. I don't have time to read through all of your sources though, so could you please just post a direct quote and then the link that proves the U.S. suffered through a famine, or in other words people were literally starving to death, during the 1930's?
 
DA60 said:
My major point is that 44 million Americans on food stamps (a huge percentage of them children) is absolutely ridiculous.

And it is FAR worse then it was even AFTER the Great Recession ended.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf

Something is VERY messed up on this and not nearly enough effort is being expended to find the cure, imo.
Click to expand...
The numbers are higher, indeed. We have no disagreement there. But *why* are the numbers higher? Increased need, or lowing of the bar to qualify?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
My Grandfather was the same way about rice. Wouldn't touch it because thats all they ate in the 30s.
Click to expand...
My dad was a kid in the late 30s, and were dirt poor in northern Idaho. His dad was often gone for weeks at a time, his mother was in and out of hospitals with various ailments (she died young from cancer, long before I was born). He and his brother were left to fend for themselves often. More than once during the winter they only had turnips to eat for 2 to 3 weeks at a time. As an adult he absolutely refused to ever eat a turnip.
 
radcen said:
The numbers are higher, indeed. We have no disagreement there. But *why* are the numbers higher? Increased need, or lowing of the bar to qualify?
Click to expand...

From what I can see, both. Yes, SNAP did lower their requirements. But the Department of Agriculture freely admits that this is only a part of the reason for the huge increase in numbers.

The economy is stagnant and the actions of the Fed and the federal government (under both GWB and Obama) are hurting those on fixed incomes and the middle classes. A quick look at the M2 Money Velocity, the home ownership rate (both at/near record lows, respectively) and the fact that the U-3 is useless as an unemployment gauge (even the Fed does not use it any longer PLUS the employment-population ratio for 25-54's is still nowhere near where it was before the Great Recession began) all point to an economy that is staggering along on cheap debt.

Sure, the rich are getting MUCH richer...but the cost is the middle class are shrinking and that is increasing the number of poor (hence the far higher SNAP numbers).
 
DA60 said:
From what I can see, both. Yes, SNAP did lower their requirements. But the Department of Agriculture freely admits that this is only a part of the reason for the huge increase in numbers.

The economy is stagnant and the actions of the Fed and the federal government (under both GWB and Obama) are hurting those on fixed incomes and the middle classes. A quick look at the M2 Money Velocity, the home ownership rate (both at/near record lows, respectively) and the fact that the U-3 is useless as an unemployment gauge (even the Fed does not use it any longer PLUS the employment-population ratio for 25-54's is still nowhere near where it was before the Great Recession began) all point to an economy that is staggering along on cheap debt.

Sure, the rich are getting MUCH richer...but the cost is the middle class are shrinking and that is increasing the number of poor (hence the far higher SNAP numbers).
Click to expand...
I agree with "both", though I think the lower criteria to qualify is the larger proportion of the two. My reasoning is hardly scientific, but I base part of that on the increase of obesity, even among poor people. Some of that can be attributed to what we're eating, but not all.

I will say, however, that my buying dollar regarding food has decreased dramatically in purchasing power over the last couple decades. And if what friends tell me is correct, it's not just me.
 
radcen said:
I agree with "both", though I think the lower criteria to qualify is the larger proportion of the two. My reasoning is hardly scientific, but I base part of that on the increase of obesity, even among poor people. Some of that can be attributed to what we're eating, but not all.

I will say, however, that my buying dollar regarding food has decreased dramatically in purchasing power over the last couple decades. And if what friends tell me is correct, it's not just me.
Click to expand...

Recently, at least within the last couple of years, radio stations in California have been running ad campaigns for CalFresh, the California version of SNAP, and have been openly saying that it doesn't matter if you're working or own a car, or even own a house, you can still qualify for free food! If your welfare program requires you to advertise, something is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom