Study: U.S. hunger costs $167.5 billion a year

Education, economy, health care all burdened

Return To Article
Add a comment
    Oct. 21, 2011 12:18 p.m.

    @The Kaiser

    Not the other way around. first off please give us some examples of how the churches, non profits and welfare organizations are dealing with our national defense. A strange choice of argument on you part, sorry. Secondly it would seem our government is doing just fine taking care of our national security lately, do you think perhaps they can do more then one thing at a time?

  • jrgl CEDAR CITY, UT
    Oct. 21, 2011 11:37 a.m.

    My 2cents:
    "A lazy hunger person"
    Poor grammar as well as gross exaggerations in your post. Children living in poverty in Washington County are at 21%, perhaps all those "lazy hunger person" children can just get a job in the part of the state with unemployment at 9.4 percent. (US Bureau of labor statistics)
    Must be easy to sit on your East side SLC computer and say that churches, non profits and others can take care of the problem of poverty in the US. Haven't you noticed that donations are way down at all of the above since the recession & need quadrupled. The Care & Share food pantry in St. George is about to close it's doors as it has dwindling donations. I've read nonprofits in the northern end of the state are suffering as well.
    What both posters fail to recognize is the downward mobility in the US has citizens that would have been safely out of poverty before the recession on a trajectory toward a lower standard of living. As long as the CEO makes 336 times the average employee you two seem to be happy.

    Oct. 21, 2011 10:53 a.m.


    Did you bother reading the article before commenting? The type of hunger we are talking about does not drive productivity it drives poor performance in the work force and schools and leads to enormous health care cost. lets not even talk about the heavy value ladder assumptions you are making that the hungry and poor are just lazy, which frankly tells us all we need to really know about how serious to take your comments.

    @tom e
    Where in the world do you get the Soviet Union, North Korea and Cuba (totalitarian societies) are/where welfare states?

  • George Bronx, NY
    Oct. 21, 2011 10:43 a.m.

    @tom e
    There are examples of failed democratic republic societies as well, the democratic republic of Congo comes to mind, so whats your point? No one is calling for a welfare state. It makes good economic sense (capitalist idea) to have a healthy, well trained, stable work force. The purely economic price of hunger (not including any type welfare) totaled up to 167.5 billion dollars in 2010. try reading hte article beofre commenting.

  • The_Kaiser Holladay, UT
    Oct. 21, 2011 9:10 a.m.

    Government can't handle this, but government needs to downsize so that the people have the resources to help.

    The churches, non-profits, and other wlefare organizations can make sure that the American people are well taken care of, and the government can worry about our national security.

    Not the other way around.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Oct. 21, 2011 7:27 a.m.

    2cents -- that is satire isn't it?

    I hope so.

  • tom_e Kaysville, UT
    Oct. 21, 2011 7:18 a.m.

    They are right we should become a welfare state. There are plenty of examples in history of countries that have succeeded in this. For example the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba. Everyone in the country should have all the food they want, live where ever they want and have all the free education they want.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Oct. 21, 2011 7:00 a.m.

    We all know we simply cannot believe anything produced by a liberal organization, don't we?

    Even if they are right.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Oct. 21, 2011 4:28 a.m.

    Is this someones idea of a joke? Hunger is the driving force of getting things done. Hunger is why people work. Hunger is why people need jobs. People work so they can eat and how well they can eat depends on how well they are paid. Rather than come out with a study like this to imply government is not spending enough money on welfare is ludicrous and wrong.

    A lazy hunger person who doesn't have to work to get fed is more economically costly than a hunger person working. Hunger is an economic benefit if you want to keep people working.

    Is this a government study to establish another control group of government socialism? Are the poor mongers after more welfare so they don't have to work to eat? But that defeats the purpose of socialism and government control to justify taxing the rich(?).

    The best thing about when a rich person turns poor, it only affects one person. But a rich person running out of money to tax, that affects thousands so we better have a back up plan to keep the rich rolling in money so we can keep taxing them.