Why do I watch these color by number, progressive documentaries? So you don't have to. The latest I gave the MST3K treatment to was "A Place at the Table". It is all about food insecurity and the growing number of Americans who are hungry. It is two ice cream scoops worth of prog ideology with cathedral sprinkles like blaming Reagan and complimenting the private food bank system but blasting it. The truest words were spoken by Raj Patel, a social justice cathedral apparatchik, when he said that food insecurity is about poverty and we don't like talking about it. Then he mentioned income inequality. It always comes down to that and never individual's decisions. Right now the Left wants everyone to believe people are too dumb to make simple decisions but all deserve the right to vote.
Ten things I noticed that the documentary makers did not:
1. The spotlighted child in Colorado suffering hunger pains was in a single mom household.
2. The attractive welfare mom in Philadelphia was a single mom who had her second child when she was making $9/hour. She said she earned too much for food stamps, but the documentary showed a graphic where $24,000 in annual income is too much for food stamps. Math: $9/ hour x 2080 hours per year (40 hours x 52 weeks) is less than $24,000. She was upset that people would treat her like she was on a different level for using welfare. Yes, yes they might, and they have a right to, since by signing up for welfare you are effectively saying "I sign away my sovereignty because I cannot take care of myself." It is natural to look at people differently when one works and one collects from a government program.
3. The mother of four boys who was wicked fat in the south working in a grille that looked like it served great tasting food did not have a man in the picture. Hmmm, so three single moms run households with economic problems. Is this a pattern to discuss in the documentary or just coincidence? No biggie, it's just a coincidence.
4. The obese girl down south had a mom buying buckets of cookies. It infuriated my wife that they kept saying food was expansive to buy yet this woman was buying cookies with her limited funds.
5. The statistic of 1 in 2 children receiving food assistance overlaps very well with the number of children born to single moms in the last decade.
6. The schools get a subsidy from the Feds for cafeteria vendors. They use $.90-$1 per student per meal on food, rest is on admin and other expenses. They can only afford cheap stuff. ABSOLUTE LIE. The Fed money is a subsidy. A subsidy is not meant to cover the entire cost of an item but help people afford them easier. Both consumers and producers in a market will respond to the subsidy, and in some markets, producers and consumers can make the subsidy the price point. The subsidy money does cover other expenses, but the truth is that the school system chooses a vendor that will create a meal cost that is exactly the same cost as the subsidy. The schools do NOT want to pay for more expensive food, and the private food service companies meet their demand. Any school can pay more if they choose, but they do not do so. It's not evil Reagan; it's thousands of local school districts screwing over kids.
7. Network television ran a special on hunger in America, which was the rallying cry for President Nixon and the overwhelmingly Demcorat Congress to forge the anti-hunger government programs, expanding school meal programs and food stamps. Media shaped the debate.
8. The price of food has gone up significantly since 2000 because of loose money policies. All food would be cheaper if the commodity boom, which is tied to Greenspan and Bernanke's low interest rate policies, had not happened.
9. Lower skilled workers would be earning more if we did not have our helter skelter open borders immigration policy. Food would be affordable if our lower class earned more. In addition, how many of these recent immigrants are part fo the swollen ranks of the hungry? This is NEVER mentioned.
10. The hungry number is a steady climb, and truly skyrocketed during the credit bubble pop of 2007-2009. Our depression that the documentary crew did not mention. Pay attention to how much the hunger counter moves under which presidents. The follow chart only goes to 2006, but calls into question the movie's hunger counter.
The studio that put this together used good music and production values. Participant Media is a full fledged propaganda organ of the cathedral. You might not recognize the name, but their movies and documentaries have filled your friends' heads with talking points. Here are some of their well known productions that have massaged the mainstream debate arena: Syriana, Good Night, and Good Luck, Fast Food Nation, An Inconvenient Truth, Darfur Now, Food, Inc., Waiting for "Superman", The Help, and Lincoln. That is a who's who of SWPL coffee shop references. In step with modern day liberalism, there is a pattern of using blacks as pieces for manipulating an audience. It is also a great list of hole filled, reality challenged, drenched in progressivism films. Produced in 2012 right in time for the election, this documentary uses children as props for everyone, minorities as props for liberals, and ties it all together in the final message of "vote for more government solutions". You may not feed these poor souls in a soup kitchen but listen to this doc, those soup kitchens don't fill the gap, so vote for more government programs.