I recently saw the phrase ‘food insecurity’ and while I’ve heard it before, I never realized how weird of a phrase it was. It’s poverty, food insecurity is the definition of poverty. But because people have phones or something it doesn’t count as poverty?
I never realized how weird of a phrase it was.
I never googled “food insecurity” because I could imagine what the definition was. But check out the third sentence on the health.gov page. Emphasis mine.
Food Insecurity - Healthy People 2030
Food insecurity is defined as a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food. In 2020, 13.8 million households were food insecure at some time during the year. Food insecurity does not necessarily cause hunger, but hunger is a possible outcome of food insecurity.
And look at the phrasing - “13.8 million households”. How many people is that?
-–
Libs love terms that they can use to make something they don’t want to think about more abstract. In this case - they can avoid having to use sentences like this…
- They don’t get enough to eat.
- They don’t have enough to eat.
- Sometimes they don’t have enough to eat.
And libs don’t want to seem cruel and dismissive so they would like to avoid…
- Sometimes they are forced to skip meals because they don’t have enough money.
- Sometimes they go hungry because they don’t have enough money.
Enter “food insecurity”. Voilà!
- They suffer from food insecurity.
No mention of troublesome words like eat, meals, money, hungry or god forbid hunger.
I think they mean that a person is food insecure if they have to consistently worry about where their next meals will come from, even if they do end up eating every meal.
As much as I hate liberals, the more lib thing to do would be to strictly define the hunger stat to something like “missed more than 3 meals in a row in the last month” or some shit to keep the stats down.
- Inflation and corporate opportunism causes goods and services to become wildly expensive.
- Discretionary spending collapses due to exorbitant costs, but essential consumption remains steady or increases.
- Cost of extraneous goods and services decreases due to reduced demand.
- Paul Krugman narrows CPI to exclude 50%+ of household consumption, focusing only on commodities with falling demand.
- Victory declared.
as long as you don’t need food, protection from the elements, or warmth, Bidenomics works for you.
pile of currency begins cheering
The US is just the UK if it was Tories vs the BNP.
Dems are literally pulling the Tory trick of telling the dumb poors that everything is actually going well, and they’re just too stupid to realize. Sure, they have to take one for the team and learn to live in austerity, but when the poors have stuff, the economy will implode.
If you exclude everything the average American needs to survive, Bidenomics totally fixed the entire economy!
![[Not the Onion] Nobel Prize winning economist says Bidenomics is working if you exclude food, energy, shelter, and used cars.(hexbear.net)](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/056e2b2f-c3f7-43b4-84ae-511a72338a87.png){kind=link}