• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Going hungry in America

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,670
271
126
Why did this thread take a political turn?
Because Dave turns everything into 'i hate the evulz rich'.

The problems were having now are truly sad. We need real jobs to get us out of this. Real private sector jobs that will get people off of federal / state programs and generating tax revenue and, more importantly, spendable income for those people to buy food. I was unemployed for 5 months 2-1/2 years ago. It's not fun. Can't even imagine what it feels like for those who've been off work for over 2 years or having 2 bottom-end jobs making less than they did before.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
This might be of interest to OP

A documentary about dumpster divers scavaging from from grocery stores throwing away older food products that haven't rotted and were still edible was broadcast on the RT channel.

I caught the tail end of it a few weeks ago and the divers get the food and immediately freeze it in a large freezer until ready for use.

It's amazing how much food is actually thrown away when it is still edible if a bit old.

http://rt.com/news/usa-food-waste-hungry-345/
here is a news story about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0JWzBG5NzY
This is the trailer for the documentary which I caught part of on RT.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Ever notice that the vast majority of those that say they have no money for food, always seem to have money for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, tattoos, cell phones, and more?
Reminds of the homeless guy I saw begging for food at the freeway exit. He was overweight and smoking a cigarette :confused:
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
The Dodd-Frank act was passed in 2010.



The banks weren't given anything. The US government purchased equity stakes in a lot of banks and in many cases the Treasury made a substantial profit in the end.
This always bothered me about the Occupy Wall St. people whining for bailouts for their student loans. Don't they realize that the bank bailouts were basically loans? Sounds to me like they want a bailout for their bailout :D
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,307
0
76
I will be the first to acknowledge that times are rough right now, but it always amazes me to see people who state that they can't pay for food, but then again they have a car, a television, and an iphone. Seen lots of people like that. By the way, I administered public assistance benefits for over a year, so I have a pretty good perspective on the issue........
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
The Dodd-Frank act was passed in 2010.



The banks weren't given anything. The US government purchased equity stakes in a lot of banks and in many cases the Treasury made a substantial profit in the end.
I did NOT mean the Dodd/Frank Bill. I meant the two people, Dodd and Frank. That was my error for not being more clear.

The US government made exactly zero off of that so called investments. Yes, this was the same as giving the banks taxpayers money. A lot of the banks were forced to take the loans they did not want or need.

All in all, this was a stupid program and solved nothing. Those over priced, un-paid for houses are still on the books of the banks. All the government did was give away hundreds of billions of dollars to very rich people. That was just wrong.
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
When the shit hits the fan, we can just eat the minorities. Herd 'em up like cattle. They breed like rabbits, so it's a sustainable resource.

P.S. SARCASM.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
More partisan hackery. Bahny Fwank was in wuv with Fwank Waines. Dems were in control the last 2 years of the Bush admin and did nothing even though they were warned. They did nothing before that as well. To put this all on one side, when there's ample proof both sides contributed, shows how willfully clueless you are.
If only this were the truth. Actually, it was Chris Cox (Republican) who was in charge of the SEC during the Bush administration, and that is who should have protected us by calling bullshit on the ratings agencies for passing off RBMA and ABS as AAA investments to a multitude of investors.

That is commonly accepted as the biggest reason the crash happened. Typical fair for your type to call partisan hackery and then call out a Dem leader and then ignore the actual cause and effect of the crisis, so I will let it slide. Just don't call me out again and expect to get away with your sensationalist drivel. Thanks.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
6
81
A lot of the banks were forced to take the loans they did not want or need.

All the government did was give away hundreds of billions of dollars to very rich people. That was just wrong.
You're contradicting yourself. In one paragraph you say that they were loans, in another you say they were giveaways.

Here are some actual facts & figures from a fairly reliable financial news source:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-20/bailout-of-wall-street-returns-8-2-profit-to-taxpayers-beating-treasuries.html

The U.S. government’s bailout of financial firms through the Troubled Asset Relief Program provided taxpayers with higher returns than yields paid on 30- year Treasury bonds -- enough money to fund the Securities and Exchange Commission for the next two decades.

The government has earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
You're contradicting yourself. In one paragraph you say that they were loans, in another you say they were giveaways.

Here are some actual facts & figures from a fairly reliable financial news source:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-20/bailout-of-wall-street-returns-8-2-profit-to-taxpayers-beating-treasuries.html
Not at all.

They were said to be loans and lots of banks didn't want them but were forced to take them. Just because they were called loans, it did in fact make the stockholders basically whole, i.e., we gave taxpayers money to very rich people. Not all the loans were paid back. Those that were, that money was deemed to be a revenue stream so the Congress could spend it. Not one dollar was paid back.....to those that were paying the bills, i.e., the taxpayers.
 

kalrith

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2005
6,630
7
81
That is exactly why we should drug test welfare recepients and also we did the right thing in only allowing food stamps to be used on food...
It's so ridiculous that this isn't being done yet. And I think that food stamps can still be traded for drugs or other non-food items.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
It's so ridiculous that this isn't being done yet. And I think that food stamps can still be traded for drugs or other non-food items.
They can be traded, but it's a hassle where the cardholder has to go buy the food and then trade it for drugs to my understanding. Plenty of people do this, I am sure, but it is much more difficult than cashing a welfare check and walking to the corner to buy drugs.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
They can be traded, but it's a hassle where the cardholder has to go buy the food and then trade it for drugs to my understanding. Plenty of people do this, I am sure, but it is much more difficult than cashing a welfare check and walking to the corner to buy drugs.
Doesn't generally work like that. The food stamp recipient takes his card to an unscrupulous merchant. The merchant rings up $400 in qualifying purchase and gives the card holder $200 - and nothing else. The merchant scores an easy 50% profit, the welfare recipient gets $200 to spend on non-approved merchandise like crack or meth. People get busted for that regularly.

Since that requires an independent food source, a much more common strategy is the small scam. If you want $20 in scratch-offs, the merchant rings up something that costs $10 (or more) and gives you lottery tickets instead. Cigarettes are I think the most common thing, but that probably varies from state to state and program to program.

I'd bet the majority of food stamp recipients stick with the small scams, especially since food is so freakin' expensive. The woman loading $200 worth of steaks into the Escalade probably represents a very small number of the total food stamp recipients.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,229
26
91
I will shed a tear onto my medium-rare tenderloin tonight and replenish the lost fluid with a bottle of Caymus Cabernet.....I think I have a '06 downstairs.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I will shed a tear onto my medium-rare tenderloin tonight and replenish the lost fluid with a bottle of Caymus Cabernet.....I think I have a '06 downstairs.
It's a damn shame that in the United States of America in the twenty-first century, there are still Americans who can't afford fresh wine!

I'll be drinking Coca-Cola tonight. But it's very, very fresh Coca-Cola.
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
LOL!

I don't think an anti obama video by a group of pasty aging white guys is going to have much of an impact on the upcoming national election.

I do, however, agree with the sentiment of the video.
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
I'll give you 5:1 obama wins the next Eeeeelect!
what a bunch of con-artists you guys live under!!!! no balls no gain!
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
Bull shit !!!
Fact. GW Bush destroyed the US economy.
Just like he destroyed every business venture he ever entered.
It wasn't a democrat crying into the camera asking for a tax payer bailout.

That is fact!

The sad part... No president will most likely NEVER be able to fix the economy.
Obama has no magic wand. Nor does Mitt.
Believe me. Mitt Romney has no magic wand either.
Only a chain saw and mental relapse.
The dirty deed has been done. And during a republican administration.

It would take the magic of Harry Potter to solve our national ecomic woes.

And what is worse, and seldom mentioned, is not only did the poor policies of the GW Bush era destroy the American economy, it spread over into the world economy.
And THAT damage is not easily solved, if ever to be solved at all.

It is totally and truly amazing what Obama has been able to contain and revive with attempting to maintain what is left of the US economy.
No other president could have done that. Certainlly not a republican. Not as long as they refuse to realize and admit the failures that created that poor economy in the first place.

So the 64 million dollar question...?
Do we continue to struggle along in maintaining a limping economy, slowly on the recovery?
Or do we return to the very same old republican chain saw policies that created this mess?

Or maybe the real question is, can voters be fooled into repeating the failures of the GW years?
High priced wars.
Tax cuts for the wealthy.
More trickle down economics?
Because THAT is the Mitt Romney plan. (for those still not paying attention)
And if we return to those good old GW days... Just how bad will it be four years from now?
That is the scary part of the question...

No, no president in the far future can undo the tragic wounds inflicted after eight years of self destruction.
Obama has amazingly been able to keep things fairly stable, for the most part.
But that stability is paper thin. Extremely delicate. Like a tight long thin string.
Dropping an elephant on that thin string tightrope will bring us all crashing down to our collective demise.
But lets just wait and see the intelligence voters still maintain come this November.

Bullshit back at you, Bush and Obama both screwed the economy over. You don't shove something like the HRB down the country's throat during a massive recession. Bush was an idiot, and Obama hasn't done any better, they're both useless.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY