# Summer is the hungriest time for some kids



## Irish Pixie

With classes ending for the summer many kids that rely on school food programs will go hungry. If you are able, please donate to No Kid Hungry, your local food bank, and/or your local food program. 

There shouldn't be a single hungry or food insecure kid in this country.


----------



## Wolf mom

Irish Pixie said:


> With classes ending for the summer many kids that rely on school food programs will go hungry. If you are able, please donate to No Kid Hungry, your local food bank, and/or your local food program.
> 
> There shouldn't be a single hungry or food insecure kid in this country.


I agree that no kid should go hungry.

BUT We need to look at the root cause of this and while feeding the children, make the parents responsible for feeding them rather than enabling the parents to continue this irresponsible behavior and to shirk their responsibilities onto you and me. 

Since we can teach all sorts of information in schools, why can't we teach them the old fashioned idea that if you can't support your children - don't have them?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Wolf mom said:


> I agree that no kid should go hungry.
> 
> BUT We need to look at the root cause of this and while feeding the children, make the parents responsible for feeding them rather than enabling the parents to continue this irresponsible behavior and to shirk their responsibilities onto you and me.
> 
> Since we can teach all sorts of information in schools, why can't we teach them the old fashioned idea that if you can't support your children - don't have them?


My opinion is the kids are already here, and it's not their fault that their parents may be irresponsible. Until we live in a perfect world our focus should be on making sure there are no hungry kids.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> My opinion is the kids are already here, and it's not their fault that their parents may be irresponsible. Until we live in a perfect world our focus should be on making sure there are no hungry kids.


So you feed their kids while the parents squander their own lives. It creates a bigger faster vicious circle that starts all over again and again.

If the parents can't feed their kids the parents should be removed from their kids' lives.

There is a big difference between the truly needy and the lifestyle of many living on government welfare and the charity of others.

You are right. It is not a perfect world, and we need to stop compounding the imperfections. Feeding them ain't fixing them. We need to correct the root cause, not simply put a band-aid on the wound.

This is from their website..

Feeding America nationwide network of food banks also supports programs that improve food security among the people we serve; educates the public about the problem of hunger; and advocates for legislation that protects people from going hungry. Individuals, charities, businesses and government all have a role in ending hunger.

http://www.feedingamerica.org/about-us/how-we-work/food-bank-network/


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yup. Give a man a fish & he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish & he'll go off fishing & not work.
Wait...


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> So you feed their kids while the parents squander their own lives. It creates a bigger faster vicious circle that starts all over again and again.
> 
> If the parents can't feed their kids the parents should be removed from their kids' lives.
> 
> There is a big difference between the truly needy and the lifestyle of many living on government welfare and the charity of others.
> 
> You are right. It is not a perfect world, and we need to stop compounding the imperfections. Feeding them ain't fixing them. We need to correct the root cause, not simply put a band-aid on the would.
> 
> This is from their website..
> 
> Feeding America nationwide network of food banks also supports programs that improve food security among the people we serve; educates the public about the problem of hunger; and advocates for legislation that protects people from going hungry. Individuals, charities, businesses and government all have a role in ending hunger.
> 
> http://www.feedingamerica.org/about-us/how-we-work/food-bank-network/


Of course we should teach the parents, did I indicate otherwise? There are programs within programs to teach people better food choices and how to budget. 

If feeding them "ain't fixing them" are you advocating not feeding hungry children because their parents are mental ill, drug addicted, or just plain old neglectful for whatever reason? Why should the kid suffer for it's parents irresponsibility? 

I started this thread because it's an issue in every area of the country, and one that I advocate for whole hardheartedly. I should have realized it would be turned into a bash the "liberal agenda" fest.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> Of course we should teach the parents, did I indicate otherwise? There are programs within programs to teach people better food choices and how to budget.
> 
> If feeding them "ain't fixing them" are you advocating not feeding hungry children because their parents are mental ill, drug addicted, or just plain old neglectful for whatever reason? Why should the kid suffer for it's parents irresponsibility?
> 
> I started this thread because it's an issue in every area of the country, and one that I advocate for whole hardheartedly. I should have realized it would be turned into a bash the "liberal agenda" fest.


I never said the word "liberal". Look back and see "root cause", that I did say. Are you suggesting the root cause is the "liberal agenda"? Some do believe just that.

I suggested removing the kids from the circle of dependency.


----------



## mmoetc

Someone advocates doing what the right says they should- support a private charity- and somehow that gets turned into being part of the problem. If government isn't the answer and private charity isn't the answer, what is?


----------



## Bret

I don't know anyone who would not try to provide something for a hungry child to eat. Food insecure is a new saying to me. I get your point that summer is a hungry time for kids. I always ate in the summer. Lots. I had parents, food, clean clothes and neighbors. Some kids just don't. There are lots of them. Good reminder.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> I never said the word "liberal". Look back and see "root cause", that I did say. Are you suggesting the root cause is the "liberal agenda"? Some do believe just that.
> 
> I suggested removing the kids from the circle of dependency.


Let 'em fend for themselves, right? After all, they asked to be born to parents that, for whatever reason, aren't fit? SMH. 

You didn't have to use the words "liberal" or "agenda" they were implied because everyone knows that no conservative would *ever* need to be on any type of program. No mentally ill or drug addicted parents are ever conservative... the only people that use programs are liberal. That was sarcasm for those so impaired.

What chaps my backside is that many (most?) of the people complaining about food programs, even those directed at kids, are "pro-life" but only pro-life while the fetus is actually in the womb. When it's born, "it's tough luck and pull yourself up by your boot straps kid cuz life sucks when you're poor." 

The issue is hungry kids and the fact that their parents are screw ups (for whatever reason) should be irrelevant.


----------



## mmoetc

Maybe we should teach these folks to feed themselves. http://m.military.com/daily-news/2014/08/18/study-finds-25-of-troops-use-food-banks.html


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bret said:


> I don't know anyone who would not try to provide something for a hungry child to eat. Food insecure is a new saying to me. I get your point that summer is hungry time for kids. I always ate in the summer. Lots. I had parents, food, clean clothes and neighbors. Some kids just don't. There are lots of them. Good reminder.


Thanks for understanding what I said, it has be very scary to be young and not know when you'll get your next meal.


----------



## MoonRiver

Irish Pixie said:


> Of course we should teach the parents, did I indicate otherwise? There are programs within programs to teach people better food choices and how to budget.
> 
> If feeding them "ain't fixing them" are you advocating not feeding hungry children because their parents are mental ill, drug addicted, or just plain old neglectful for whatever reason? Why should the kid suffer for it's parents irresponsibility?
> 
> I started this thread because it's an issue in every area of the country, and one that I advocate for whole hardheartedly. I should have realized it would be turned into a bash the "liberal agenda" fest.


I guess I'm just naive, but I don't believe there is a major hunger problem in the US. With food stamps, other government programs, food banks, etc, there is no reason for a functioning person to be hungry long term. Are there emergency situations? Of course, and food banks and churches should be able to handle them.

As for children going without food, sounds like child protective services should be involved. If a parent(s) is not competent to parent a child, that child should not be in that home. 

In many cases, if a child goes hungry it is because the adult chooses to spend the food money on something else. 

Every time I hear the "Feeding America" commercials, I get angry. If there are so many starving children in the US, why do they have to use made up terms like food insecure households? 



> What does &#8220;food insecure&#8221; mean?
> 
> Food insecurity is the most broadly-used measure of food deprivation in the United States. The USDA defines food insecurity as meaning &#8220;consistent access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources at times during the year.&#8221;
> 
> Acceptable shorthand terms for food insecurity are &#8220;hungry, or at risk of hunger,&#8221; and &#8220;hungry, or faced the threat of hunger.&#8221; Food insecurity can also accurately be described as &#8220;a financial juggling act, where sometimes the food ball gets dropped.&#8221; TFBN


So if a person says they were hungry 1 time during the year and there was no food available, that qualifies as food insecure. That's how Feed America comes up with 15.8 million kids who go to bed hungry. In fact you don't even have to be hungry to qualify as food insecure. You could just worry about being hungry and you qualify.

The 1st step in solving a problem is to clearly and accurately define the problem.

Americans need to learn to do without - a new car, new furniture, smart phone, new clothes, etc and focus on what their main responsibility is - providing for and raising their children.

On the other hand, anyone who wishes to volunteer in food banks, kitchens, meals-in-wheels, etc has their heart in the right place. I just don't see anything wrong with a kid having egg salad on wonder bread for dinner once in a while.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> Someone advocates doing what the right says they should- support a private charity- and somehow that gets turned into being part of the problem. If government isn't the answer and private charity isn't the answer, what is?


I've never understood that either. While the fingers are being pointed the kids go hungry. It's just wrong.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> Maybe we should teach these folks to feed themselves. http://m.military.com/daily-news/2014/08/18/study-finds-25-of-troops-use-food-banks.html


That is one of the most disgusting things I've read in years.


----------



## no really

My Mom and a couple of other relatives volunteer at the closest food bank, it's about sixty miles one way. We also help friends and family when they have difficult times.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> *Let 'em fend for themselves, right?* After all, they asked to be born to parents that, for whatever reason, aren't fit? SMH.
> 
> You didn't have to use the words "liberal" or "agenda" they were implied because everyone knows that no conservative would *ever* need to be on any type of program. No mentally ill or drug addicted parents are ever conservative... the only people that use programs are liberal. That was sarcasm for those so impaired.
> 
> What chaps my backside is that many (most?) of the people complaining about food programs, even those directed at kids, are "pro-life" but only pro-life while the fetus is actually in the womb. When it's born, "it's tough luck and pull yourself up by your boot straps kid cuz life sucks when you're poor."
> 
> The issue is hungry kids and the fact that their parents are screw ups (for whatever reason) should be irrelevant.


Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Why do you attack me? I do not want kids to go hungry, I don't think anyone does. 

I'll say it again, r e a l s l o w, attack the root cause, don't just go for the "easy" symptom.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MoonRiver said:


> I guess I'm just naive, but I don't believe there is a major hunger problem in the US. With food stamps, other government programs, food banks, etc, there is no reason for a functioning person to be hungry long term. Are there emergency situations? Of course, and food banks and churches should be able to handle them.
> 
> As for children going without food, sounds like child protective services should be involved. If a parent(s) is not competent to parent a child, that child should not be in that home.
> 
> In many cases, if a child goes hungry it is because the adult chooses to spend the food money on something else.
> 
> Every time I hear the "Feeding America" commercials, I get angry. If there are so many starving children in the US, why do they have to use made up terms like food insecure households?
> 
> So if a person says they were hungry 1 time during the year and there was no food available, that qualifies as food insecure. That's how Feed America comes up with 15.8 million kids who go to bed hungry. In fact you don't even have to be hungry to qualify as food insecure. You could just worry about being hungry and you qualify.
> 
> The 1st step in solving a problem is to clearly and accurately define the problem.
> 
> Americans need to learn to do without - a new car, new furniture, smart phone, new clothes, etc and focus on what their main responsibility is - providing for and raising their children.
> 
> On the other hand, anyone who wishes to volunteer in food banks, kitchens, meals-in-wheels, etc has their heart in the right place. I just don't see anything wrong with a kid having egg salad on wonder bread for dinner once in a while.


While your post is very eloquent and nicely written, you do seem to be naive to the fact that there are millions of food insecure kids in the US. The definition you gave, while it could be technically accurate, isn't clear. Here is a definition that is closer to reality, "food inÂ·seÂ·cuÂ·riÂ·ty noun
the state of being without *reliable* access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food." Period.

The fact that this was included: "Americans need to learn to do without - a new car, new furniture, smart phone, new clothes, etc and focus on what their main responsibility is - providing for and raising their children." and "I just don't see anything wrong with a kid having egg salad on wonder bread for dinner once in a while." While millions of kids are homeless and don't have enough to eat tells me that you really don't understand the severity of the situation. Most cases of true food insecurity the family is definitely not worried about, nor could qualify or afford, a new car, new furniture, smart phone, etc. The problem is rent, utilities, and other basics of life.

Thanks for giving credit for people that do help.


----------



## mmoetc

Irish Pixie said:


> That is one of the most disgusting things I've read in years.


The methodology of the study is flawed and the headline likely overstates the usage for effect but it's wrong that even one military family needs this kind of assistance. Here's another heartwarming story for those who wish to lump all food stamp recipients together. http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/17/news/economy/military-food-stamps/index.html

I'm sure we can all agree to honor the military for a day in another year or so.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> With classes ending for the summer many kids that rely on school food programs will go hungry. If you are able, please donate to No Kid Hungry, your local food bank, and/or your local food program.
> 
> There shouldn't be a single hungry or food insecure kid in this country.


I have a better idea.... lock those parents up that wont take care of thier children.... put them on a bread and water diet! Then put the kiddos into homes where they will be fed.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Why do you attack me. I do not want kids to go hungry, I don't think anyone does.
> 
> I'll say it again, r e a l s l o w, attack the root cause, don't just go for the "easy" symptom.


And why do you insist on saying that I don't want to change the root cause? As I said before, work on changes WHILE feeding hungry kids. The fact that their parents are irresponsible is irrelevant. 

Can we agree on that?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have a better idea.... lock those parents up that wont take care of thier children.... put them on a bread and water diet! Then put the kiddos into homes where they will be fed.


OK. I kinda doubt everyone will be on board for the additional cost of jail for the parents and foster care for the kids tho.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Irish Pixie said:


> With classes ending for the summer many kids that rely on school food programs will go hungry. If you are able, please donate to No Kid Hungry, your local food bank, and/or your local food program.
> 
> There shouldn't be a single hungry or food insecure kid in this country.



http://www.secondhelpings.org/

This is an amazing program in downtown Indianapolis.....
I volunteered here.....and the work they do is amazing.
3500 meals per day, all donated food....all volunteers distributing.

They also have a culinary program that helps kids get their foot in the door to an education!!


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. I kinda doubt everyone will be on board for the additional cost of jail for the parents and foster care for the kids tho.


The additional cost of jail for the parents is pretty short term... six months chained to a floor with half a slice of wonderbread and a teacup of water daily should eliminate a lot of the problem. As to the kids and foster care costs... adopt the little buggers out... lots of folks out there whining about no kids being available. Mite even be a way to turn a profit.... sell the lil ones to parents willing to pay.


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> Someone advocates doing what the right says they should- support a private charity- and somehow that gets turned into being part of the problem. If government isn't the answer and private charity isn't the answer, what is?


personal responsibility??


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The additional cost of jail for the parents is pretty short term... six months chained to a floor with half a slice of wonderbread and a teacup of water daily should eliminate a lot of the problem.


Inmates have rights, lots and lots of rights. In 1985 when my husband started as a type of guard at a psychiatric prison hospital his starting pay was just about the same as it was to support one inmate in New York for a year. That included food, medical and dental care, legal advice, education, and more.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> personal responsibility??


In a perfect world, yes. We've never had a perfect world tho... not even in the "good old days". Back then churches, community, and family pitched in to help. Unfortunately that's not common now.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Inmates have rights, lots and lots of rights. In 1985 when my husband started as a type of guard at a psychiatric prison hospital his starting pay was just about the same as it was to support one inmate New York for a year. That included food, medical and dental care, legal advice, education, and more.


Now we get to the meat of the matter.... eliminate those "rights" and make jail a punishment instead of a all expenses paid vacation!


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> In a perfect world, yes. We've never had a perfect world tho... not even in the "good old days". Back then churches, community, and family pitched in to help. Unfortunately that's not common now.


Thats because our federal government opted to exceed its authorized powers and get into the charity game... this needs to be stopped. I recall lots of beans and taters when I was growing up... and it really didnt stunt my growth all that much... I hit 6'4" and 200lb my senior year in high school.


----------



## no really

Yvonne's hubby said:


> personal responsibility??


I do agree, see it my own family. OnE has 4 kids, she will not work! College educated with a degree in accounting, she now after all the student loans and help from the family says it's to much trouble. As to feeding the kids if it isn't straight from a box she will not do it. Her parents are helping as much as possible.


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> personal responsibility??


Many of the people using these programs are exercising just that. They go to work, pay their bills and use things like food stamps, school lunch programs , and food banks to ensure their kids are fed. They're making do as best they can. It's easy to lump them all into deadbeat, bad parent categories( and there are plenty of those) but much less comfortable to realize that we don't all live in that same world where hard work ensures success, money and happiness. And food.


----------



## HDRider

Through a partnership with the Arkansas Department of Education's Child Nutrition Unit and the United States Department of Agriculture, the cafeterias at the Rector and Piggott School Districts are offering free meals to anyone age 18 and under. 

The schools are preparing lunch and breakfast daily, Monday through Friday, as part of a service created specifically for the youngest members of the communities.

http://www.cctimesdemocrat.com/story/2095544.html


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> And why do you insist on saying that I don't want to change the root cause? As I said before, work on changes WHILE feeding hungry kids. The fact that their parents are irresponsible is irrelevant.
> 
> Can we agree on that?


I did not see say anything about root cause.

Are you asking me to agree that irresponsible parents are irrelevant? I'd say they are very relevant.

If you are saying hungry kids need food, yes, I most certainly agree.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Now we get to the meat of the matter.... eliminate those "rights" and make jail a punishment instead of a all expenses paid vacation!


OK. How are you going to do that? Much easier said than done, especially after the fact. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that it is (probably) impossible now.


----------



## Evons hubby

no really said:


> I do agree, see it my own family. OnE has 4 kids, she will not work! College educated with a degree in accounting, she now after all the student loans and help from the family says it's to much trouble. As to feeding the kids if it isn't straight from a box she will not do it. Her parents are helping as much as possible.


And as long as someone else will pick up her slack she will continue to leech off them. This one sounds like a prime candidate to be shackled to a ring in the floor for about six months. She might get the hint.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> I did not see say anything about root cause.
> 
> Are you asking me to agree that irresponsible parents are irrelevant? I'd say they are very relevant.
> 
> If you are saying hungry kids need food, yes, I most certainly agree.


No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when a kid is hungry the fact that his or her parent is irresponsible is irrelevant. The kid takes precedent.


----------



## HDRider

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats because our federal government opted to exceed its authorized powers and get into the charity game... this needs to be stopped. I recall lots of beans and taters when I was growing up... and it really didnt stunt my growth all that much... I hit 6'4" and 200lb my senior year in high school.


I think I had white beans, taters and corn bread every meal except breakfast. I only hit 5'7"..

You do hit an important point. I wonder how many parents know how to feed their family economically? One chicken, a gallon of milk, a bag of rice (or taters) and beans (white, brown, red, black, etc.) goes a lot further than a Big Mac and a Coke.

Throw in a garden and poor people can eat like rich people.


----------



## Evons hubby

HDRider said:


> Through a partnership with the Arkansas Department of Education's Child Nutrition Unit and the United States Department of Agriculture, the cafeterias at the Rector and Piggott School Districts are offering free meals to anyone age 18 and under.
> 
> The schools are preparing lunch and breakfast daily, Monday through Friday, as part of a service created specifically for the youngest members of the communities.
> 
> http://www.cctimesdemocrat.com/story/2095544.html


Oh my.... this just makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.... at least until I see the full repercussions of such nonsense.... A great many of those "parents" will not even bother to try.... why would they? their kids are going to eat well whether they try or not.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. How are you going to do that? Much easier said than done, especially after the fact. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that it is (probably) impossible now.


Its only impossible while the feel good meddlers are running things... there is no real reason that things cannot be changed.


----------



## HDRider

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh my.... this just makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.... at least until I see the full repercussions of such nonsense.... A great many of those "parents" will not even bother to try.... why would they? their kids are going to eat well whether they try or not.


My comment to the paper when the article ran...

"... _offering free meals to anyone age 18 and under.

How is it free_?"


----------



## Evons hubby

HDRider said:


> I wonder how many parents know how to feed their family economically?


I would say maybe 5 percent.


----------



## HDRider

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would say maybe 5 percent.


Another "root cause"..


----------



## 7thswan

If the Kids aren't getting fed, the parents need to have the food stamps taken away and be given actual food. Like it was in the past.


----------



## Evons hubby

HDRider said:


> My comment to the paper when the article ran...
> 
> "... _offering free meals to anyone age 18 and under.
> 
> How is it free_?"


It isnt.... there simply is no such thing as a free lunch.... or breakfast. Someone always has to pay... it is only a matter of who pays.


----------



## Evons hubby

7thswan said:


> If the Kids aren't getting fed, the parents need to have the food stamps taken away and be given actual food. Like it was in the past.


Yeppers, a half slice of bread per day, they should also have their kids taken away and placed in homes where people understand that kids are important.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> I think I had white beans, taters and corn bread every meal except breakfast. I only hit 5'7"..
> 
> You do hit an important point. I wonder how many parents know how to feed their family economically? One chicken, a gallon of milk, a bag of rice (or taters) and beans (white, brown, red, black, etc.) goes a lot further than a Big Mac and a Coke.
> 
> Throw in a garden and poor people can eat like rich people.


I going to assume you're being facetious, if not perhaps you don't know that grocery stores and gardens are very few and far between where most poor people live. 

You do have an excellent point in that many people (rich, middle income, and poor) don't know how to cook from scratch.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh my.... this just makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.... at least until I see the full repercussions of such nonsense.... A great many of those "parents" will not even bother to try.... why would they? their kids are going to eat well whether they try or not.


And that's a good thing, right? The kid isn't at fault and shouldn't be be punished for his or her parents failure.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Its only impossible while the feel good meddlers are running things... there is no real reason that things cannot be changed.


Like I said, I don't disagree but how do you get it changed? Even if "the feel good meddlers" aren't running things how do you propose to change it?


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> And that's a good thing, right? The kid isn't at fault and shouldn't be be punished for his or her parents failure.


I agree one hundred percent.... the kids need to be fed... but the parents need to pay for their crime... lock up the parents, put them on a bread and water diet for a few months, that might get their attention. In the meantime, yes feed those kiddies but that can be done by exercising the adoption process. Millions of good responsible people are looking and waiting in line for kids to adopt.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree one hundred percent.... the kids need to be fed... but the parents need to pay for their crime... lock up the parents, put them on a bread and water diet for a few months, that might get their attention. In the meantime, yes feed those kiddies but that can be done by exercising the adoption process. Millions of good responsible people are looking and waiting in line for kids to adopt.


Wait. Is this deja vu all over again? I'm sure we've already discussed this exact question within the last 30 minutes or so.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Like I said, I don't disagree but how do you get it changed? Even if "the feel good meddlers" aren't running things how do you propose to change it?


Change the laws regarding a convicted felons "rights". People who cant get their poo in a group well enough to feed their own kids I consider to be felons of the worst kind.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Change the laws regarding a convicted felons "rights". People who cant get their poo in a group well enough to feed their own kids I consider to be felons of the worst kind.


Do you realistically think that is going to happen without a catastrophic SHTF scenario? I don't, rights once given are usually a witch kitty to get taken away.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Wait. Is this deja vu all over again? I'm sure we've already discussed this exact question within the last 30 minutes or so.


Yes, I made that same suggestion earlier... I have seen nothing to change my mind so I still offer it up as a good solution.


----------



## Oxankle

I'd feel a whole lot better about feeding poor kids at schools and summertime kitchens if I did not see so many "poor" people carrying out 24-packs of beer from the grocery store. 

When I worked and traveled I saw thousands of shacks in the country, land all about them but nary a garden, seldom even chickens and very seldom a pig pen or a cow.

If you live in the country and have kids there is not one reason in the world why you cannot grow part of your food, keep chickens or a pig or a cow. Even a milk goat pays its own way and then some.

We are bringing up a whole generation of people who are nothing more than leeches. Sorry, we are working on the third generation of leeches now.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you realistically think that is going to happen without a catastrophic SHTF scenario? I don't, rights once given are usually a witch kitty to get taken away.


Oh I dunno... men used to have a lot of rights.... but they have mostly been taken away. Cant own or apply corporal punishment to another human being... not even the one yer married to! I used to have the right to carry a handgun and smoke on an airplane. Those are just a few long established rights that the citizens of our nation once enjoyed..... Surely a few privileges currently enjoyed by our nations convicted can be removed. Might have to hire more witches kitties but it can be done!


----------



## MoonRiver

mmoetc said:


> Many of the people using these programs are exercising just that. They go to work, pay their bills and use things like food stamps, school lunch programs , and food banks to ensure their kids are fed. They're making do as best they can. It's easy to lump them all into deadbeat, bad parent categories( and there are plenty of those) but much less comfortable to realize that we don't all live in that same world where hard work ensures success, money and happiness. And food.


I doubt if that's the case. Many people take advantage of free food just because it is there for the taking.

I was thinking back to my childhood. In the summer, the HS coach and 2 students were hired to run the playground, wading pool, baseball, etc. I spent just about every summer day there, went home for lunch, and usually returned in the afternoon. If there had been a free lunch program, I'm sure my mother would have said I could eat lunch at the playground if I wanted to. Not because we couldn't afford food, but just because it was available and convenient.


----------



## Evons hubby

Oxankle said:


> I'd feel a whole lot better about feeding poor kids at schools and summertime kitchens if I did not see so many "poor" people carrying out 24-packs of beer from the grocery store.
> 
> When I worked and traveled I saw thousands of shacks in the country, land all about them but nary a garden, seldom even chickens and very seldom a pig pen or a cow.
> 
> If you live in the country and have kids there is not one reason in the world why you cannot grow part of your food, keep chickens or a pig or a cow. Even a milk goat pays its own way and then some.
> 
> We are bringing up a whole generation of people who are nothing more than leeches. Sorry, we are working on the third generation of leeches now.


I would say 5th generation... my biomother was a leech, she had one son who is still a leech, he bred two more who exist on the system, and those two both now have grandkids coming up in the welfare leech system.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh I dunno... men used to have a lot of rights.... but they have mostly been taken away. Cant own or apply corporal punishment to another human being... not even the one yer married to! I used to have the right to carry a handgun and smoke on an airplane. Those are just a few long established rights that the citizens of our nation once enjoyed..... Surely a few privileges currently enjoyed by our nations convicted can be removed. Might have to hire more witches kitties but it can be done!


Maybe. It's the "human rights" thing that is the stumbling block. Your first few examples are human rights and they took centuries to implement, do you think they'd be easy to remove now? How easy would it be to take way the rights of blacks and women or to re implement slavery? Inmates are human (I don't agree with this on all counts) and have rights given to them by fundamental statutes of this country. And again, I don't disagree with you about inmates having too many rights, but short of a SHTF Walking Dead situation (with or without zombies) it's unlikely to change. 

The handgun and smoking aren't human rights and are easier to implement and remove. Like Prohibition, that bit was enacted AND removed quickly.


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would say maybe 5 percent.


The rest of the world must be really lousy at it. http://www.theatlantic.com/business...eats-how-america-spends-money-on-food/273811/. And the more you make the efficient you seem to be.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio

Irish Pixie said:


> With classes ending for the summer many kids that rely on school food programs will go hungry. If you are able, please donate to No Kid Hungry, your local food bank, and/or your local food program.
> 
> There shouldn't be a single hungry or food insecure kid in this country.


Irish Pixie, thanks for the timely reminder. Folks in southwest Ohio might consider the Freestore Foodbank, which has been around a long time and is pretty efficient at turning donations into food for the poor.

A few years ago a number of my relatives and I agreed that instead of spending money on traditional Christmas gifts for each other we would exchange charitable contributions. For example, I give to the Freestore Foodbank in my mother's name and she gives to Coats For Kids. This has been a really painless way for us to increase our charitable giving, and it ratchets down the holiday stress of trying to find gifts for people who already have pretty much everything they need.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Maybe. It's the "human rights" thing that is the stumbling block. Your first few examples are human rights and they took centuries to implement, do you think they'd be easy to remove now? How easy would it be to take way the rights of blacks and women or to re implement slavery? Inmates are human (I don't agree with this on all counts) and have rights given to them by fundamental statutes of this country. And again, I don't disagree with you about inmates having too many rights, but short of a SHTF Walking Dead situation (with or without zombies) it's unlikely to change.
> 
> The handgun and smoking aren't human rights and are easier to implement and remove. Like Prohibition, that bit was enacted AND removed quickly.


At the risk of extreme thread drift.... the right to keep and bear arms was one of those human rights that the founders felt strongly enough to list in our bill of rights. alas... that basic human right has indeed been infringed upon.... despite the highest law of our land demanding otherwise. Never ever underestimate the power of the meddlers! As to felons having rights..... no one seems to object to the removal of many of their human rights.... such as the right to freely travel about the countryside unfettered...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> At the risk of extreme thread drift.... the right to keep and bear arms was one of those human rights that the founders felt strongly enough to list in our bill of rights. alas... that basic human right has indeed been infringed upon.... despite the highest law of our land demanding otherwise. Never ever underestimate the power of the meddlers!


This has nothing to do with hungry kids, so I'll keep it brief and to one post, you still have the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> This has nothing to do with hungry kids, so I'll keep it brief and to one post, you still have the right to keep and bear arms.


Sort of.... as long as they comply with certain standards set by the gooberment and I have the "proper permit" required.


----------



## where I want to

There is a current advertisement on TV where a contrast is made between the child who opens the fridge to get something to eat because they are hungry and a child who opens the fridge and finds nothing to eat even though they are hungry, while the respective mothers are sitting on the couch, looking on. The ad then goes on to pronounce "this is what hunger looks like." 
This is the typical guilting of America, where no matter what is done, someone will go out of their way to load shame on those who actually work to make sure they provide. I can't imagine just sitting around on the couch while a pet of mine goes hungry, much less a child. Yet somehow the social accusers seem perfectly ok with attempting to unload the quilt from those who are responsible onto those who aren't. 
The rules of this game is that the parent can never betold they are responsible for the need of the public to step in constantly and provide what they don't lest it diminish the guilt that wrings out the funds to support the social workers, lobbyists, media, government employees, etc. No, somehow it must be diverted onto those who actually seem to care enough to fix problems.
The basic truth is that there are incompetent parents who can't see as far as the hands on the end of their own arms for an answer so there will always be children stuck with those parents who suffer. So the only thing that can be done is to provide the minimum neccessary for the children to survive their unfortunate inheritance while actually putting the blame where it deserves to be- on the parents. A few will take the blame to heart and do better but many will simply let it slide right off anyway for the convenience of not exerting themselves. 
The alternative to that is to feed the idea of automated virtue of failure by shifting any bad feelings onto others, which in turn leads to even more failure and anger at those hard hearted, ignorant folk who won't just hand over what they work for on demand without complaining.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Commercials, guilt, shame, lazy, greedy, irresponsible, whatever - it simply doesn't matter. 

No if ands or buts - no kid should be hungry in this country.


----------



## wr

Not every poor parent is a layabout, druggie, smoker or system abuser, sometimes, it's just bad circumstances that bring them to that point. I could cite many situations in my own area of decent hardworking folks, who ended up in a bad way through no fault of their own. 

Most of my farming neighbors are on the financial brink after three crop seasons being hailed out, my First Nations neighbors are struggling to rebuild after their homes were destroyed by flooding because insurance and the government wheels turn very slowly and oil and gas (which keeps my province in business) is in a bit of a downturn. 

We just hired a new driver and while we're trying hard to make it work because of his young family but it's not easy because he's sustained a brain injury a few years ago and simply can't retain certain information so in the next week or so, we have to decide if we can expand our company in a way that keeps him doing what he's capable of doing, which would involved significant financial investment or simply let him go. If we do let him go, who's going to hire a great guy who has limited short term and long term memory, slurred speech, a lovely wife and two adorable kids?


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> I going to assume you're being facetious, if not perhaps you don't know that grocery stores and gardens are very few and far between where most poor people live.
> 
> You do have an excellent point in that many people (rich, middle income, and poor) don't know how to cook from scratch.


I am dead serious. Maybe that is another "root cause"..


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> I am dead serious. Maybe that is another "root cause"..


What do you suggest as real world steps to eliminate what you indicate is the root cause?


----------



## MoonRiver

Irish Pixie said:


> Commercials, guilt, shame, lazy, greedy, irresponsible, whatever - it simply doesn't matter.
> 
> No if ands or buts - no kid should be hungry in this country.


Hunger can be a great motivator.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MoonRiver said:


> Hunger can be a great motivator.


Dang, did you mean that to be so harsh?

I'm sure all kids under the age of 10 will understand it. Or not. They probably only know they're hungry and don't know when there next meal will be.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> What do you suggest as real world steps to eliminate what you indicate is the root cause?


My suggestions will not works as long as they hand out free food.

Why would I toil in a garden when all I have to do is walk into a free cafeteria, or better yet you show up at my door with a box of ding dongs and a case of soda? Plus the local hooligans will trash it anyway, and I can't post a neighborhood watch, because my town doesn't allow me to defend myself.

Why would I put in a a bodega when it is robbed three times a week?

Why would I run a baby sitting co-op when everyone lets their kids run wild?

Why would I set up a small business and hire you when you are more interested in texting on your free phone than working at my minimum wage job? Honestly your skill level does not even justify $8 an hour.

People are so very creative. That creativity can be a force for good, or it can be a force for evil. Seems like evil is winning.. Handing out free food does not seem very creative at all.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> Dang, did you mean that to be so harsh?
> 
> I'm sure all kids under the age of 10 will understand it. Or not. They probably only know they're hungry and don't know when there next meal will be.


And you suggest that a "parent" should keep their kid, if they are not motivated to feed the hungry kid?


----------



## arabian knight

MoonRiver said:


> Hunger can be a great motivator.


 It sure is that is why the FS program is changing some in WI. Should do this all over the country , from drug testing to using the majority of the monies to buy HEALTHY Foods. No junk foods no shell fish either like Lobster tail LOL


----------



## HDRider

Ms. Pixie,

I am not picking on you, and I am sure you are a wonderful human being, and your intentions are nothing but honorable and altruistic.

I am not poking fun of you..

You do what your heart leads you to do. 

Peace be with you..


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> And you suggest that a "parent" should keep their kid, if they are not motivated to feed the hungry kid?


Nope, not at all. The parent isn't my biggest concern, the kid is. It's unlikely that hunger will motivate a young kid to do much beyond steal or beg. That isn't the outcome that is trying to be achieved, is it?

Thank you! This is a big deal to me and I really only wanted to get the message out.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> My suggestions will not works as long as they hand out free food.
> 
> Why would I toil in a garden when all I have to do is walk into a free cafeteria, or better yet you show up at my door with a box of ding dongs and a case of soda? Plus the local hooligans will trash it anyway, and I can't post a neighborhood watch, because my town doesn't allow me to defend myself.
> 
> Why would I put in a a bodega when it is robbed three times a week?
> 
> Why would I run a baby sitting co-op when everyone lets their kids run wild?
> 
> Why would I set up a small business when I hire you and you are more interested in texting on your free phone than working at my minimum wage job? Honestly your skill level does not even justify $8 an hour.
> 
> People are so very creative. That creativity can be a force for good, or it can be a force for evil. Seems like evil is winning.. Handing out free food does not seem very creative at all.


OK. If you take away the free food how does the kid eat? The kids are the most important element and you haven't even considered them.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> Commercials, guilt, shame, lazy, greedy, irresponsible, whatever - it simply doesn't matter.
> 
> No if ands or buts - no kid should be hungry in this country.


No nor should parents whose behavior causes such evil be given a pass lest people decide that is acceptable and it increases the number of children in that position in the first place. The goal should be to reduce the number of children who the world has to save by decreasing the number of parents perceiving the responsibility for taking care belongs elsewhere.


----------



## Nevada

Irish Pixie said:


> This is a big deal to me and I really only wanted to get the message out.


It's a big deal to me also. I lived with a kid who was extremely food insecure. After living with me for a few years that was reversed.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. If you take away the free food how does the kid eat? The kids are the most important element and you haven't even considered them.


It is not an either/or. It is feed the kids but make it a social obligation that a parent is the first line of defense for their children. Do not waste one iota of resources on making the parents or the public feel otherwise.


----------



## MoonRiver

Irish Pixie said:


> Dang, did you mean that to be so harsh?
> 
> I'm sure all kids under the age of 10 will understand it. Or not. They probably only know they're hungry and don't know when there next meal will be.


Read about some of the world's greatest achievers. Adversity is probably the greatest motivator there is. 

Being hungry occasionally is not necessarily a bad thing - starvation is. Just where are all these children that don't get enough food? Are they underweight because they are not getting enough food? Are they suffering from medical conditions because they are not getting enough food?

Michelle Obama's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act limits school lunches to 650-850 calories. It doesn't cost very much for a parent to provide 650-850 calories 3 times a day. Heck, 2 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are about 700 calories. Two egg salad sandwiches are almost 1000 calories.


----------



## emdeengee

Oxankle said:


> I'd feel a whole lot better about feeding poor kids at schools and summertime kitchens if I did not see so many "poor" people carrying out 24-packs of beer from the grocery store.
> 
> When I worked and traveled I saw thousands of shacks in the country, land all about them but nary a garden, seldom even chickens and very seldom a pig pen or a cow.
> 
> If you live in the country and have kids there is not one reason in the world why you cannot grow part of your food, keep chickens or a pig or a cow. Even a milk goat pays its own way and then some.
> 
> We are bringing up a whole generation of people who are nothing more than leeches. Sorry, we are working on the third generation of leeches now.


There have always been irresponsible people - nothing new about that. It may seem like there are more but then again there are a lot more people.

There have always been poor (and middle class people) walking out of the stores carrying 24 packs of beer or sitting in bars for hours. Of course back then the reality was that Daddy got his beer and Mama got her hair done and the kids starved. Just ask some of your older friends and neighbours who experienced this or went to school with kids who lived this back in the good old days. I shared my lunch everyday with two such kids and when my Mom saw that I was losing weight she asked why and then added to my lunches for them as well. She did not care that the parents were poor or irresponsible only that the kids were hungry and she did what she could because she considered it her duty.

That is why our societies introduced safety nets for the kids such as meal programs. Well in actual fact it was the military that wanted these because the children were growing up to be frail and medically unfit for service.

There are enormous changes that need to be made but letting kids go hungry while the politicians and self righteous argue about it is not humane, Christian or civilized. IMO I could care less if the parents starve if it is through their behaviour but feed the kids.

And I agree. Such support for a fetus and then nothing for the actual child? Insanity at its finest.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> No nor should parents whose behavior causes such evil be given a pass lest people decide that is acceptable and it increases the number of children in that position in the first place. The goal should be to reduce the number of children who the world has to save by decreasing the number of parents perceiving the responsibility for taking care belongs elsewhere.


I'm only talking about this country, I'm not Wonder Woman, the world will have to wait until next month. 

To me, the first and most important task is making sure there are no hungry or food insecure kids. As long as the kids are fed the parental problem is the next issue to be dealt with.


----------



## Irish Pixie

emdeengee said:


> There have always been irresponsible people - nothing new about that. It may seem like there are more but then again there are a lot more people.
> 
> There have always been poor (and middle class people) walking out of the stores carrying 24 packs of beer or sitting in bars for hours. Of course back then the reality was that Daddy got his beer and Mama got her hair done and the kids starved. Just ask some of your older friends and neighbours who experienced this or went to school with kids who lived this back in the good old days. I shared my lunch everyday with two such kids and when my Mom saw that I was losing weight she asked why and then added to my lunches for them as well. She did not care that the parents were poor or irresponsible only that the kids were hungry and she did what she could because she considered it her duty.
> 
> That is why our societies introduced safety nets for the kids such as meal programs. Well in actual fact it was the military that wanted these because the children were growing up to be frail and medically unfit for service.
> 
> There are enormous changes that need to be made but letting kids go hungry while the politicians and self righteous argue about it is not humane, Christian or civilized. IMO I could care less if the parents starve if it is through their behaviour but feed the kids.
> 
> And I agree. Such support for a fetus and then nothing for the actual child? Insanity at its finest.


My sista from another mista!


----------



## 7thswan

where I want to said:


> No nor should parents whose behavior causes such evil be given a pass lest people decide that is acceptable and it increases the number of children in that position in the first place. The goal should be to reduce the number of children who the world has to save by decreasing the number of parents perceiving the responsibility for taking care belongs elsewhere.


All people, parents or not should be informed upon accepting ANY kind of Aid-if they have a Child while on Aid, they will lose the Aid.


----------



## Irish Pixie

7thswan said:


> All people, parents or not should be informed upon accepting ANY kind of Aid-if they have a Child while on Aid, they will lose the Aid.


I need a bit of clarification: if they become pregnant they'd be forced to abort to keep their aid?

Thanks.

ETA: This is totally a tangent but I'm perpetually and totally curious...


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm only talking about this country, I'm not Wonder Woman, the world will have to wait until next month.
> 
> To me, the first and most important task is making sure there are no hungry or food insecure kids. As long as the kids are fed the parental problem is the next issue to be dealt with.


But that is what I keep saying, kids from parents who feel the pressure to feed them will not be hungry in the first place.
Me- I believe in programs where all kids can attend without regard to ability to pay is the best option. That school with a free lunch for all be available all year round. The parents who can afford to pay along with those who can't along with those who won't. Nothing special for those parents who fail. But also something good for those parents who pay the supporting taxes too. Something everyone can support.
Part of the trouble with special programs is that it is part of the tendency of social activists to insist the "rich" pay seperately according to ability when their taxes already pay for everything in the first place. The idea is that making people pay allows more to be spent on those who can't afford something but what it really does it make a class of users who don't pay versus a class that can't use but is required to pay anyway. And that makes some people design their lives to "qualify" while those who can't object.


----------



## Bret

Food for thought. I remember reading about families in war-torn cities who boiled wallpaper to recover the paste to feed their families. It stuck on me. Probably at the same time they buried loves ones who died of starvation and sickness. They didn't choose to be in that endless desperate situation. I have never been that hungry or food insecure. Picking up a little tab once in a while feeds me. I would skip a few restaurant visits here and there if I had too. I often look like I skipped more than a few. I rarely hear my belly growl though. I look like I'm bragging. Beg your pardon.


----------



## Nevada

emdeengee said:


> There have always been irresponsible people - nothing new about that.


I think we all know that. All we're saying is that the kids shouldn't have to suffer the consequences. After all, the kids aren't the ones who were irresponsible.

Then also, a lot of people are in a bad financial condition today through no fault of their own. It was the result of buying a home at a bad time, usually on the advice of a greedy mortgage broker. There's no dispute that irresponsible bankers are to blame. Shouldn't the banker's families be the ones to go hungry?


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. If you take away the free food how does the kid eat? The kids are the most important element and you haven't even considered them.


IP,
Please.... Creativity, remember?


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> But that is what I keep saying, kids from parents who feel the pressure to feed them will not be hungry in the first place.
> Me- I believe in programs where all kids can attend without regard to ability to pay is the best option. That school with a free lunch for all be available all year round. The parents who can afford to pay along with those who can't along with those who won't. Nothing special for those parents who fail. But also something good for those parents who pay the supporting taxes too. Something everyone can support.
> Part of the trouble with special programs is that it is part of the tendency of social activists to insist the "rich" pay seperately according to ability when their taxes already pay for everything in the first place. The idea is that making people pay allows more to be spent on those who can't afford something but what it really does it make a class of users who don't pay versus a class that can't use but is required to pay anyway. And that makes some people design their lives to "qualify" while those who can't object.


I can't agree with your first sentence. I don't care how much pressure you put on an addict or someone with a mental illness it will never force them have any type of responsibility unless they receive treatment. 

Please don't use CPS or whatever agency will have stepped in because we all know, or know of, families that have fallen through the cracks. 

I do agree with most of the rest of your post.


----------



## emdeengee

Nevada said:


> I think we all know that. All we're saying is that the kids shouldn't have to suffer the consequences. After all, the kids aren't the ones who were irresponsible.
> 
> Then also, a lot of people are in a bad financial condition today through no fault of their own. It was the result of buying a home at a bad time, usually on the advice of a greedy mortgage broker. There's no dispute that irresponsible bankers are to blame. Shouldn't the banker's families be the ones to go hungry?


I don't understand Nevada. I thought that was what I said in my post.


----------



## HDRider

Bret said:


> Food for thought. I remember reading about families in war-torn cities who boiled *wallpaper to recover the paste *to feed their families. *It stuck on me*. Probably at the same time they buried loves ones who died of starvation and sickness. They didn't choose to be in that endless desperate situation. I have never been that hungry or food insecure. Picking up a little tab once in a while feeds me. I would skip a few restaurant visits here and there if I had too. I often look like I skipped more than a few. I rarely hear my belly growl though. I look like I'm bragging. Beg your pardon.


Sorry, no disrespect.. I couldn't help myself..


----------



## Oxankle

Emdeengee: 
Your comment "And I agree. Such support for a fetus and then nothing for the actual child? Insanity at its finest." is ludicrous. Where did you see any comment that indicated we did not want to see the children fed? The child, no matter how rotten and useless the parent, is blameless. 

No matter that that child, if left to the care of its parents, is likely to grow up much like them. The only human thing to do is offer charity--see that they are fed and educated in hope that they rise above their origins.

Your comment is hardly better than that of the people who say we who are against abortion should adopt. The fact is that many of us have and do, and despite our distaste for the necessity we regularly support the taxes for schools and the free lunches to the children of leeches. And free housing and welfare and telephones and on and on and on. Distasteful necessities?

Humanity forces us to do things we dislike, but we do them. What we really object to is people who insist that lawful murder is moral. Morality is immutable and cannot be rationalized. Abortion is in fact ethnic cleansing by self, the Darwin effect of a nation. The people who insist that they must kill a child rather than support it "because we can't afford another child", are committing racial suicide. 


The woman who cats around and then kills the unfortunate result---what are we to say of her and her man? Murder for pleasure?

And then there are the specious arguments about rape and incest. Those rare incidents can be set aside. The elders of every religion on earth have mulled over questions like these and in time come to answers--Our own society says hard cases make bad law--and these are hard cases but there are workable solutions that don't involve killing.

Similarly, the unborn downs baby, the spina bifida, the unformed brain---all very hard cases, and I don't know the answer. Neither do you or anyone else.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. If you take away the free food how does the kid eat? The kids are the most important element and you haven't even considered them.


The kids new adopted parents will feed them..... and I dont really care if those poor parents who couldnt be bothered to feed their kids ever eat another bite.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The kids new adopted parents will feed them..... and I dont really care if those poor parents who couldnt be bothered to feed their kids ever eat another bite.


More likely they will go into the foster care system. Actually, I know they'd at least start off in the foster care system, and we're back to the "I don't think everyone will be on board for the additional costs" thing of post #22.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> More likely they will go into the foster care system. Actually, I know they'd at least start off in the foster care system, and we're back to the "I don't think everyone will be on board for the additional costs" thing of post #22.


Why put a kid through the foster care system designed for temporary situations? Put them directly into homes of families that want them. As I mentioned earlier there are a LOT of folks wanting to adopt... might even be able to turn a profit by auctioning the lil buggers off to wealthy childless couples.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why put a kid through the foster care system designed for temporary situations? Put them directly into homes of families that want them. As I mentioned earlier there are a LOT of folks wanting to adopt... might even be able to turn a profit by auctioning the lil buggers off to wealthy childless couples.


That's the best case scenario, worst case is bringing back orphanages. Older kids have always had a harder time being adopted. 

Plus we're back to parental rights, human rights and pesky things like that. I'll refer you to post #58. 

As much as I agree with you about reform it's unlikely to happen without a SHTF scenario. 

I think you'd have a real problem auctioning the kiddies off like cattle too. The whole slavery thing... not to mention the pedophiles.


----------



## AmericanStand

HDRider said:


> Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Why do you attack me? I do not want kids to go hungry, I don't think anyone does.
> 
> I'll say it again, r e a l s l o w, attack the root cause, don't just go for the "easy" symptom.



Um while you are busy attacking the "root cause" you are letting the kids go hungry. 

Sorta the equivalent of the emergency room doctor sending the burnt and bleeding to drivers ed before treating them.


----------



## MO_cows

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why put a kid through the foster care system designed for temporary situations? Put them directly into homes of families that want them. As I mentioned earlier there are a LOT of folks wanting to adopt... might even be able to turn a profit by auctioning the lil buggers off to wealthy childless couples.


So we should take people's children away without due process and sell them to the highest bidder? Gee, I can't imagine why they aren't lined up around the block to sign up for that idea. :stars:


----------



## arabian knight

Irish Pixie said:


> That's the best case scenario,* worst case is bringing back orphanages*. .


What do you mean by bring back?
They are all other the USA including two right here in WI. Oh they may not be called orphanages anymore but they ARE called Foster Care Homes.

And here is the National Organization for them.

http://coalitionforcyf.org


----------



## Evons hubby

MO_cows said:


> So we should take people's children away without due process and sell them to the highest bidder? Gee, I can't imagine why they aren't lined up around the block to sign up for that idea. :stars:


Who said anything about foregoing due process?


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> I can't agree with your first sentence. I don't care how much pressure you put on an addict or someone with a mental illness it will never force them have any type of responsibility unless they receive treatment.
> 
> Please don't use CPS or whatever agency will have stepped in because we all know, or know of, families that have fallen through the cracks.
> 
> I do agree with most of the rest of your post.


Deep breath. That is not what I said- of course there are parents who will never properly take care of child. That is why somethings like universally free school lunches should exist. 
But many parents would step up and see that their children are fed otherwise, at least if they were criticised for not doing so and had no easy options to pawn off the responsibility while thinking themselves victims. Much, much too often the first thing parents are trained to think of is how to keep themselves eligible for some benefit or another, even to the point of refusing a good future for the sake of a barely tolerable but easy present, when they have the power to do what most other peopke already do.
Instead of constantly wringing something more out of people working hard to provide for their own, there should be demands on the parents to get it right in the first place WITH NO EXCUSES handed to them. That is what helps creates a world where what is essentually charity is seen as a right. Programs of freebies should come with some effort to get the parents to step up, no matter how futile it seems.
Demanding charity as the first and usually only act is extortion. If charity comes with expectations of effort, then those who can be educated to do what's right will, there will be enough resources left for the one who simply are incorrigible.
To announce that "there should be no hungry children" as if its everyone else's problem IS what has helped create a world where more and more people think that's true and should come without their effort.
And no, that does not mean what I can see coming- that it's ok that children starve.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> Deep breath. That is not what I said- of course there are parents who will never properly take care of child. That is why somethings like universally free school lunches should exist.
> But many parents would step up and see that their children are fed otherwise, at least if they were criticised for not doing so and had no easy options to pawn off the responsibility while thinking themselves victims. Much, much too often the first thing parents are trained to think of is how to keep themselves eligible for some benefit or another, even to the point of refusing a good future for the sake of a barely tolerable but easy present, when they have the power to do what most other peopke already do.
> Instead of constantly wringing something more out of people working hard to provide for their own, there should be demands on the parents to get it right in the first place WITH NO EXCUSES handed to them. That is what helps creates a world where what is essentually charity is seen as a right. Programs of freebies should come with some effort to get the parents to step up, no matter how futile it seems.
> Demanding charity as the first and usually only act is extortion. If charity comes with expectations of effort, then those who can be educated to do what's right will, there will be enough resources left for the one who simply are incorrigible.
> To announce that "there should be no hungry children" as if its everyone else's problem IS what has helped create a world where more and more people think that's true and should come without their effort.
> And no, that does not mean what I can see coming- that it's ok that children starve.


Sigh. You're splitting hairs, and I'm not going to argue with you.


----------



## HDRider

AmericanStand said:


> Um while you are busy attacking the "root cause" you are letting the kids go hungry.
> 
> Sorta the equivalent of the emergency room doctor sending the burnt and bleeding to drivers ed before treating them.


Why do you jump to these irrational conclusions, these illogical leaps? 

We all know the answer, you want the absurd conclusion to help support your absurd agenda. Jeez


----------



## Michael W. Smith

This seems all along the line of "It takes a village to raise a child."

Ummmmm . . . . . . I've seen the people in the village - no thank you! I created this child, it's MY responsibility to care for them.

About 4 months ago, a local church got the idea of having a free soup dinner once a month. No strings attached - if you wanted a free soup meal - all you had to do was show up. No questions on IF you could afford it, no questions on anything - a simple - free soup meal.

There was all kinds of hoopla about it in the paper. All kinds of volunteers came to help out to hand make from scratch the soup dinners.

There was just a notice in this week's paper - the monthly soup dinner is being canceled. Why? Because the most people they had show up to eat was 11.

Do we have hungry kids around here? Probably. But if their parents won't even take them for a free meal - and let's be serious here - WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY???? - if they aren't responsible enough to feed them in the first place, they certainly aren't going to take them anywhere!!

I understand your concern though - the child is hungry and it's not the child's fault that their parent(s) is/are not caring or responsible. However, the fact remains that I certainly am NOT responsible for someone else's child!

The system of government help has been going on for years. One would hope that a child growing up hungry would get the idea of "When I grow up and have kids of my own, I won't be like my parents." 

But it's apparent that the system isn't working. Welfare families produce more generations of welfare families.

And really, if someone provides you with everything you need or will do something for you even though you are capable of doing it yourself - why even put forth the effort? The "system" will provide.


----------



## HDRider

Pixie,
You might have set a record. You opened this thread today. It already has 6 pages, and counting. That is pretty fast.

Again, I think you did it with the best of intentions, and had no expectations whatsoever it would stir this much response. Has it caught you off guard?

Or, were you being intentionally provocative?


----------



## po boy

HDRider said:


> My comment to the paper when the article ran...
> 
> "... _offering free meals to anyone age 18 and under.
> 
> How is it free_?"


Down at my old place, the local paper ran an article about the summer lunch program and any one 18 and under could get free food. In addition people with a disability up to age 21 could get free food. The article also included photos of *VERY WELL DRESSED KIDS* being bused to the school cafeteria.

Agreed, some kids need help. The feds need help in determining which kids need help as they have lost the war on poverty.

More than 50 years ago I washed dishes in the cafeteria in order to save my dad a quarter for my lunch. I earned my lunch and there was no such thing as a summer food program and no one starved. My brothers drove school buses to help out.

In addition, My brothers and I went to work for less than a Dollar an hour and helped support our family. That was in High School!

It's called responsibility and taken care of yourself and your siblings, your children and your parents.

Too many think the government is their Daddy and we allowed that to happen!!!

It's a scheme to make people dependent on the government.


----------



## Old Vet

The answer is easy. Let the government take care of the kids. Once thy are born let the government have them until they are 21.


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. I kinda doubt everyone will be on board for the additional cost of jail for the parents and foster care for the kids tho.


Not for long based on YH's solution.


----------



## MO_cows

po boy said:


> Down at my old place, the local paper ran an article about the summer lunch program and any one 18 and under could get free food. In addition people with a disability up to age 21 could get free food. The article also included photos of *VERY WELL DRESSED KIDS* being bused to the school cafeteria.
> 
> Agreed, some kids need help. The feds need help in determining which kids need help as they have lost the war on poverty.
> 
> More than 50 years ago I washed dishes in the cafeteria in order to save my dad a quarter for my lunch. I earned my lunch and there was no such thing as a summer food program and no one starved. My brothers drove school buses to help out.
> 
> In addition, My brothers and I went to work for less than a Dollar an hour and helped support our family. That was in High School!
> 
> It's called responsibility and taken care of yourself and your siblings, your children and your parents.
> 
> Too many think the government is their Daddy and we allowed that to happen!!!
> 
> It's a scheme to make people dependent on the government.


Many times on this forum, it's been said that if you have "personal responsibility" you wouldn't have children that you couldn't support. 

Based on your account, your folks couldn't support all their children. And yet you don't seem the worse for wear by having to work for things starting at a younger age than most people. You seem proud of it. 

Things aren't always so simple as they seem...........


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> Pixie,
> You might have set a record. You opened this thread today. It already has 6 pages, and counting. That is pretty fast.
> 
> Again, I think you did it with the best of intentions, and had no expectations whatsoever it would stir this much response. Has it caught you off guard?
> 
> Or, were you being intentionally provocative?


I'm shocked. I had no idea that the post that popped into my head this morning as I read a letter from the food bank I donate to detailing their summer kids food program would garner this much interest. 

I was taken aback by the amount of people that lost sight of the most important detail in my original post tho- feeding hungry kids. I really never expected the "Yes-but" posts. 

I truly appreciate being able to debate this topic on Homesteading Today. A few months ago it wouldn't have been possible.

ETA: My grandmother was food insecure before it was a very descriptive buzzword. I can remember asking my mother why grandma had shelves and shelves of food in her basement when the grocery store wasn't far away. She told me that when grandma was little she was hungry a lot and never got over the feeling. The cans of food made her feel better. I found out years later that my mother didn't always have enough food either. It was then I started volunteering and donating to food programs.


----------



## HDRider

Why could you not have debated it here?


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> Why could you not have debated it here?


I was banned from GC, politics (before it was private) and the survival forums. I'd never posted in any of them but I did report outrageous posts (as we were asked to do) and was banned for it. Actually, I was banned entirely from HT for about two months. My banning had nothing to do with infractions or anything to do with Homesteading Today. I asked the new admin and moderators to review my banning and was allowed back.


----------



## AmericanStand

There are other I topics here that would have been very heavily watched a few months ago.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> I was banned from GC, politics (before it was private) and the survival forums. I'd never posted in any of them but I did report outrageous posts (as we were asked to do) and was banned for it. Actually, I was banned entirely from HT for about two months. My banning had nothing to do with infractions or anything to do with Homesteading Today. I asked the new admin and moderators to review my banning and was allowed back.


Asking you questions is an outrage to you? Some folks just complain too much. :smack


----------



## AmericanStand

HDRider said:


> Why do you jump to these irrational conclusions, these illogical leaps?
> 
> 
> 
> We all know the answer, you want the absurd conclusion to help support your absurd agenda. Jeez



What irrational conclusions ?
What absurd agenda ? 

Do you mean my idea that feeding kids is a good idea ?


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Asking you questions is an outrage to you? Some folks just complain too much. :smack


Huh? Color me confused...

What are you talking about?


----------



## po boy

MO_cows said:


> 1.*Many times on this forum, it's been said that if you have "personal responsibility" you wouldn't have children that you couldn't support.
> *
> 2. Based on your account, your *folks couldn't support all their* children. And yet you don't seem the worse for wear by having to work for things starting at a younger age than most people. You seem proud of it.
> 
> 3. Things aren't always so simple as they seem...........


 1. Where did I say my parents had more children than they could support? They did instill that personal responsibility!

2. Nor did I say that. None of us ever went hungry. As a family we worked to make sure we had what we needed. It's the way families are or should be before the Gov't became the daddy for some. What's not to e proud of?.

3. What's complicated about taking care of your family??


----------



## Tricky Grama

MoonRiver said:


> I guess I'm just naive, but I don't believe there is a major hunger problem in the US. With food stamps, other government programs, food banks, etc, there is no reason for a functioning person to be hungry long term. Are there emergency situations? Of course, and food banks and churches should be able to handle them.
> 
> As for children going without food, sounds like child protective services should be involved. If a parent(s) is not competent to parent a child, that child should not be in that home.
> 
> In many cases, if a child goes hungry it is because the adult chooses to spend the food money on something else.
> 
> Every time I hear the "Feeding America" commercials, I get angry. If there are so many starving children in the US, why do they have to use made up terms like food insecure households?
> 
> So if a person says they were hungry 1 time during the year and there was no food available, that qualifies as food insecure. That's how Feed America comes up with 15.8 million kids who go to bed hungry. In fact you don't even have to be hungry to qualify as food insecure. You could just worry about being hungry and you qualify.
> 
> The 1st step in solving a problem is to clearly and accurately define the problem.
> 
> Americans need to learn to do without - a new car, new furniture, smart phone, new clothes, etc and focus on what their main responsibility is - providing for and raising their children.
> 
> On the other hand, anyone who wishes to volunteer in food banks, kitchens, meals-in-wheels, etc has their heart in the right place. I just don't see anything wrong with a kid having egg salad on wonder bread for dinner once in a while.


This is my take too. With 1/3 of the country...thats ONE THIRD living in households getting some form of assistance, its appalling. That is NOT taking SS into account, we paid for that.


----------



## arabian knight

Tricky Grama said:


> This is my take too. With 1/3 of the country...thats ONE THIRD living in households getting some form of assistance, its appalling. That is NOT taking SS into account, we paid for that.


How about schools providing a Summer Lunch program?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> This is my take too. With 1/3 of the country...thats ONE THIRD living in households getting some form of assistance, its appalling. That is NOT taking SS into account, we paid for that.


Do you have a cite? I'd like to know what the aid includes.


----------



## arabian knight

Tricky Grama said:


> This is my take too. With 1/3 of the country...thats ONE THIRD living in households getting some form of assistance, its appalling. That is NOT taking SS into account, we paid for that.


It may even be a little higher then that now. It is horrible how and where this country has gone. To The Dogs that is where. This liberal thinking in this country is horrible.


----------



## JeffreyD

arabian knight said:


> How about schools providing a Summer Lunch program?


Here in Los Angeles, the schools provide breakfast lunch and dinner every day of the year.
It's for the children of course. Yet the parents show up in Cadillac suv's and such! The parents get fed too. The taxpayers pay for this gluttony.


----------



## painterswife

Irish Pixie said:


> Wow. This thread went for 7 pages without a really rude post. Sadly, the author doesn't surprise me one bit...
> 
> ETA: I think that that a group of posters have decided that this thread needs to be locked. It's the only way I can explain the name calling and personal attacks.


All this because someone posted a reminder.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you have a cite? I'd like to know what the aid includes.



Here ya go!
It's even higher if all entitlements are used.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...st-americans-now-receive-government-benefits/

Obamacare has pushed us over the entitlements tipping point. In 2011 some 49.2 percent of U.S. households received benefits from one or more government programsâabout 151 million out of an estimated 306.8 million Americansâaccording to U.S. Census Bureau data released last October.

Thus, perhaps 52 percent of U.S. householdsâmore than halfânow receive benefits from the government, thanks to President Obama. And Mr. Entitlement is just getting started. If Obamacare is not repealed millions more will join the swelling rolls of those dependent on government handouts.

BUT:

Some 42 million are seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare.

so, approximately 1/3 of the entire country is receiving some form of entitlement.....1/3!!!


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Here ya go!
> It's even higher if all entitlements are used.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...st-americans-now-receive-government-benefits/
> 
> Obamacare has pushed us over the entitlements tipping point. In 2011 some 49.2 percent of U.S. households received benefits from one or more government programs&#8212;about 151 million out of an estimated 306.8 million Americans&#8212;according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last October.
> 
> Thus, perhaps 52 percent of U.S. households&#8212;more than half&#8212;now receive benefits from the government, thanks to President Obama. And Mr. Entitlement is just getting started. If Obamacare is not repealed millions more will join the swelling rolls of those dependent on government handouts.
> 
> BUT:
> 
> Some 42 million are seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare.
> 
> so, approximately 1/3 of the entire country is receiving some form of entitlement.....1/3!!!


Thanks. It's like I assumed, an opinion piece, and Obamacare subsidies are included. 

This doesn't have anything to do with hungry kids tho.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> Wow. This thread went for 7 pages without a really rude post. Sadly, *the author doesn't surprise me one bit...*
> 
> So that doesn't count as a personal attack?
> 
> ETA: I think that a group of posters have decided that this thread needs to be locked. It's the only way I can explain the name calling and personal attacks.


You sure have some thin skin. It seems everyone who disagrees with you is a name caller who is bent on personal attacks. :shrug:


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sort of.... as long as they comply with certain standards set by the gooberment and I have the "proper permit" required.


You mean "infringed"??
Gasp. 
TX bill to open carry passed. 'Course ya have to have the CCL 1st...


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> Thanks. It's like I assumed, an opinion piece, and Obamacare subsidies are included.
> 
> This doesn't have anything to do with hungry kids tho.


From Forbes! You asked, i gave you a link! The numbers, if you looked and actually read the article, came from the US census department. Do you have any facts to say this is not true? Or do you just disagree with it?

And of course, a link that's not a blog or an opinion piece would be nice, since you don't like them. Why would anything to do with Obamacare, be exempt? It IS welfare!


----------



## Tricky Grama

arabian knight said:


> It sure is that is why the FS program is changing some in WI. Should do this all over the country , from drug testing to using the majority of the monies to buy HEALTHY Foods. No junk foods no shell fish either like Lobster tail LOL


NO!!! Don't tell me that is all b/c of that bad, uncaring Gov Walker!?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Here is an excellent informational pamphlet that the food bank I donate to puts out on it's yearly food distribution. It is area specific but gives information that I think would translate across the country. It includes definitions. 

http://www.foodbankst.org/usr/HIA2014_ExecSummary.pdf


----------



## JeffreyD

Head start programs don't create any lasting benefit either! Huge waste of taxpayer money for babysitting the poor. Lets use that money for new books and supplies that really mean something substantial to the kids! Just saying!


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> Here is an excellent informational pamphlet that the food bank I donate to puts out on it's yearly food distribution. It is area specific but gives information that I think would translate across the country. It includes definitions.
> 
> http://www.foodbankst.org/usr/HIA2014_ExecSummary.pdf


Interesting read, they do have an agenda, and they don't really have any statistics because it is just an opinion piece too!


----------



## Tricky Grama

arabian knight said:


> How about schools providing a Summer Lunch program?


Prolly a good idea if there was a need. I don't live in such an area so I won't comment. Just seems food banks are cleaned out a lot by those who do not need it...leaving those who do, w/o.


----------



## JeffreyD

Reading these numbers from the census department looks a lot like what's happening in Greece right now! Pathetic we let our elected officials do this to us.


----------



## Tricky Grama

JeffreyD said:


> You sure have some thin skin. It seems everyone who disagrees with you is a name caller who is bent on personal attacks. :shrug:


No where in my post did I call names. No where in my post did I personally attack. More than I can say for the acuser.
I had quoted YH, who I love. Except when he thinks its his right to blow cigarette smoke in my face. Then we FIGHT!. I betcha yrs ago when we had that rousting debate he called me names under his breath! 'Cause... 
Funny no one 'flagged' the posts. Hmmm...its gonna be interesting to see why threads get locked. 

Its becoming clearer & clearer why some HT'ers were not here for a long period of time.


----------



## MO_cows

Can someone please tell me why Trixie is getting thrashed for *government* largesse, when her OP was a suggestion for people to VOLUNTARILY support their local food bank because the kids are out of school and not getting the meals there? Did this thread just go so fast the actual point went by in a blur and no one saw it?


----------



## Tricky Grama

JeffreyD said:


> You sure have some thin skin. It seems everyone who disagrees with you is a name caller who is bent on personal attacks. :shrug:


Post of the day award.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Interesting read, they do have an agenda, and they don't really have any statistics because it is just an opinion piece too!


Do you understand what a non-profit organization is? The statistics are based on their 2013 food distribution. I don't know how that could be considered an opinion... 

It's not like linking an opinion piece written by a contributor of a well known magazine and stating it as fact. :facepalm:


----------



## Tricky Grama

MO_cows said:


> Can someone please tell me why Trixie is getting thrashed for *government* largesse, when her OP was a suggestion for people to VOLUNTARILY support their local food bank because the kids are out of school and not getting the meals there? Did this thread just go so fast the actual point went by in a blur and no one saw it?


I think a lot posted what their area was doing to feed the kids. What more is there to say? Except that there are far too many parents who do not step up to the plate. And when that was simi poopooed, it turned, I guess. 

BTW, no one is starving. We have far more fat kids than starving ones. We have far too many gov't programs to feed everyone. 
The conservatives here have prolly-collectively-given more $$ more time & more blood-like the studies show-& are tired of being taxed to death too. 

I'm not sure why it took 7 pages...


----------



## JeffreyD

MO_cows said:


> Can someone please tell me why Trixie is getting thrashed for *government* largesse, when her OP was a suggestion for people to VOLUNTARILY support their local food bank because the kids are out of school and not getting the meals there? Did this thread just go so fast the actual point went by in a blur and no one saw it?


Trixie? Because she/he makes absurd posts, and when a reasonable answer is given, it's never good enough. Yet when he/she posts, were supposed to take it as gospel!

I'm saying it doesn't appear that there is much of a food desert anywhere, and that a lot of these programs are dumping on the taxpayer, not cool!

Could you point out exactly where "trixie" is getting trashed without cause?

Feeding kids is most defiantly a noble cause, but why do the parents abdicate their responsibility...that's the question. And to me, it'd because the food is FREE!!!(except the taxpayer pays for it)

What happens when there's no more taxpayers?


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Trixie? Because she/he makes absurd posts, and when a reasonable answer is given, it's never good enough. Yet when he/she posts, were supposed to take it as gospel!
> 
> I'm saying it doesn't appear that there is much of a food desert anywhere, and that a lot of these programs are dumping on the taxpayer, not cool!
> 
> Could you point out exactly where "trixie" is getting trashed without cause?
> 
> Feeding kids is most defiantly a noble cause, but why do the parents abdicate their responsibility...that's the question. And to me, it'd because the food is FREE!!!(except the taxpayer pays for it)
> 
> What happens when there's no more taxpayers?


Are you mocking MO Cow's spelling of my username? I do believe that is against the new rules. 

If you don't think that hunger is a problem don't donate. Pretty simple.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you understand what a non-profit organization is? The statistics are based on their 2013 food distribution. I don't know how that could be considered an opinion...
> 
> *Yes, as a matter of fact i do! I sit on the board of several! What statistics? Their own?*
> 
> It's not like linking an opinion piece written by a contributor of a well known magazine and stating it as fact. :facepalm:


Your group has an agenda, the "opinion piece" had actual numbers from the federal government, do those not count in your world? Only articles that YOU agree with seem to be worthy! ound:


----------



## wr

HDRider said:


> I think I had white beans, taters and corn bread every meal except breakfast. I only hit 5'7"..
> 
> You do hit an important point. I wonder how many parents know how to feed their family economically? One chicken, a gallon of milk, a bag of rice (or taters) and beans (white, brown, red, black, etc.) goes a lot further than a Big Mac and a Coke.
> 
> Throw in a garden and poor people can eat like rich people.


I do like the idea of gardens and community gardens but a lot of low cost housing in my part of the world does not allow such a thing at all.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Im not sure who "trixie" is! Was it your name? I wasn't sure. It's not hard to spell your user name. I donate, that's all you need to know. Again with the threats! Is that how you deal with life, threatening people? Seems that way to me! And just so were clear on this.....threaten me all you want, i really don't care. It just makes you look petty.


I was the only being trashed, so I think it's safe to assume she was talking about me. 

I was pointing out the new rules since you seem to have missed reading them. You're welcome.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Your group has an agenda, the "opinion piece" had actual numbers from the federal government, do those not count in your world? Only articles that YOU agree with seem to be worthy! ound:


Oh, so you *do* realize that the pamphlet I linked was detailing the 2013 food distribution, and there is no way it was opinion? I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood what you said.


----------



## MoonRiver

I started a thread in Politics referencing this thread to try to move the political aspect out of this one. Since the OP posted this in GC, I think we have an obligation to not make it into a political debate.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> I think a lot posted what their area was doing to feed the kids. What more is there to say? Except that there are far too many parents who do not step up to the plate. And when that was simi poopooed, it turned, I guess.
> 
> BTW, no one is starving. We have far more fat kids than starving ones. We have far too many gov't programs to feed everyone.
> The conservatives here have prolly-collectively-given more $$ more time & more blood-like the studies show-& are tired of being taxed to death too.
> 
> I'm not sure why it took 7 pages...


If you don't think kid hunger is an issue, don't donate. It's important to me.


----------



## Old Vet

Irish Pixie said:


> If you don't think kid hunger is an issue, don't donate. It's important to me.


That is fine by me but when the government is sponsoring it how do you not donate? If all you mean is private enterprise that is different but the government has lots of programs to feed hungry a child. Like school lunch programs during the summer.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Old Vet said:


> That is fine by me but when the government is sponsoring it how do you not donate? If all you mean is private enterprise that is different but the government has lots of programs to feed hungry a child. Like school lunch programs during the summer.


The entire last 8 pages have been about a non-profit food bank that I donate to. So it's my money I want to spend on food for kids, not yours.


----------



## Old Vet

Irish Pixie said:


> The entire last 8 pages have been about a non-profit food bank that I donate to. So it's my money I want to spend on food for kids, not yours.


If you want to support the food bank by your own money go ahead. I doubt any would not agree with that. It is a good cause. But when the government supports that same food bank I will disagree. Some food banks have a small taxpayer money to operate on.


----------



## Declan

We have two local food banks. One is the Salvation Army and the other one was created by a group of churches in response to some questionable things going on at the local Salvation Army food bank. 

My city planted a bunch of plum trees in the median and along parts of the sides of a feeder road that passes by a housing project and also the church-based food bank. Today I saw several women out in the medium picking plums. I think people underestimate what people will do to feed themselves if given the opportunity. Even if opportunities exist, they also have to be able to see that opportunity. 

On the day that the food bank on that road is open, I have seen people lined up around the building and stretching down the road in front of other businesses. Unfortunately, not all of these people I see are women or even young. I see a lot of old people and middle-aged men in that line. It is sad, especially sincee we Americans already pay the lowest percentage of our income for food than any of several developed nations studied based on an article I read recently. 

You people can do whatever you want. I recently cleaned out my cabinets of purchased food I am not likely to eat and donated it; I donated money to a local fundraising effort specifically targeting kids; and I periodically pay for those meal boxes when the grocery store is doing that promotion for the hungry. I have a brother who royally messed up one of his feet in an odd accident at home. After a couple surgeries, he is pretty much in a difficult situation. He cannot get disability, cannot keep regular work because his foot is so unpredictable--some days he can do well, and some days he can barely walk--he is not eligible for medicaid or food stamps or public housing. I support him. That is what I am supposed to do because he is my brother, but not everybody has someone who can do that for them. I choose to do what I can do instead of finding reasons not to do what I can do. Others can do as they please, but please don't give someone a hard time for caring. The world is messed up enough without that unnecessary negativity.


----------



## Wolf mom

Irish Pixie said:


> And why do you insist on saying that I don't want to change the root cause? As I said before, work on changes WHILE feeding hungry kids. *The fact that their parents are irresponsible is irrelevant.
> *
> Can we agree on that?


The fact that the parents are irresponsible is the main cause NOT irrelevant.

You are just not getting it - no one wants kids to be hungry - BUT your initial post did not state while feeding them, work on the root cause. All it did was show someone ready to enable irresponsible parental behavior.

Please don't get your panties in a twist anymore over statements that, in actuality are supporting your initial statement and taking it one step further. Trying to resolve an injustice is far healthier than just putting a band aid on it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Wolf mom said:


> The fact that the parents are irresponsible is the main cause NOT irrelevant.
> 
> You are just not getting it - no one wants kids to be hungry - BUT your initial post did not state while feeding them, work on the root cause. All it did was show someone ready to enable irresponsible parental behavior.


And I understand completely what you're saying, and have for 8 pages. My concern is hungry kids and I don't particularly care about their parents. The kid is not at fault for her parent(s) being irresponsible, and the kid should not be punished by having food withheld. 

Again, make sure the kids are fed, not food insecure, and then work on the cause of the problem. There is no "yes-but" its just yes- feed hungry kids- for me anyway.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you have a cite? I'd like to know what the aid includes.


the census bureau.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> the census bureau.


JeffreyD linked the opinion piece by a contributor to Forbes magazine last night. It did include information from the census bureau but the link itself was most definitely *not* from the census bureau.


----------



## Wanda

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The kids new adopted parents will feed them..... and I dont really care if those poor parents who couldnt be bothered to feed their kids ever eat another bite.



This adopted thing you speak of. Where are these magical parents located at? In case you have not noticed, these hungry kids we are talking about do not have very many of those cute little newborn babies and small toddler that are in high demand. Those older hungry kids that are packing some age and rough edges are a NO SALE in the real world business of adoption.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> If you don't think kid hunger is an issue, don't donate. It's important to me.


I think if there was such an outlet here & a need, I'd participate, but our city is pretty savvy about what is needed. Some seem to think if there's a new made up term, its gospel & anyone who disagrees is a horrible lessthanhuman. Or just a "don't you care about hungry kids' type of person.

It is a far more valid fact that there's irresponsible parents. Education may be the key, along w/jobs. But this admin has done nothing to promote the private sector to create jobs. Quite the contrary. And the welfare reform done by Clinton & his R congress? This admin took care of that. Made it so you could be on welfare & not have to look for work.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Declan said:


> We have two local food banks. One is the Salvation Army and the other one was created by a group of churches in response to some questionable things going on at the local Salvation Army food bank.
> 
> My city planted a bunch of plum trees in the median and along parts of the sides of a feeder road that passes by a housing project and also the church-based food bank. Today I saw several women out in the medium picking plums. I think people underestimate what people will do to feed themselves if given the opportunity. Even if opportunities exist, they also have to be able to see that opportunity.
> 
> On the day that the food bank on that road is open, I have seen people lined up around the building and stretching down the road in front of other businesses. Unfortunately, not all of these people I see are women or even young. I see a lot of old people and middle-aged men in that line. It is sad, especially sincee we Americans already pay the lowest percentage of our income for food than any of several developed nations studied based on an article I read recently.
> 
> You people can do whatever you want. I recently cleaned out my cabinets of purchased food I am not likely to eat and donated it; I donated money to a local fundraising effort specifically targeting kids; and I periodically pay for those meal boxes when the grocery store is doing that promotion for the hungry. I have a brother who royally messed up one of his feet in an odd accident at home. After a couple surgeries, he is pretty much in a difficult situation. He cannot get disability, cannot keep regular work because his foot is so unpredictable--some days he can do well, and some days he can barely walk--he is not eligible for medicaid or food stamps or public housing. I support him. That is what I am supposed to do because he is my brother, but not everybody has someone who can do that for them. I choose to do what I can do instead of finding reasons not to do what I can do. Others can do as they please, but please don't give someone a hard time for caring. The world is messed up enough without that unnecessary negativity.


So sorry about your brother. Prayers & good thoughts.

Patty


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> I think if there was such an outlet here & a need, I'd participate, but our city is pretty savvy about what is needed. Some seem to think if there's a new made up term, its gospel & anyone who disagrees is a horrible lessthanhuman. Or just a "don't you care about hungry kids' type of person.
> 
> It is a far more valid fact that there's irresponsible parents. Education may be the key, along w/jobs. But this admin has done nothing to promote the private sector to create jobs. Quite the contrary. And the welfare reform done by Clinton & his R congress? This admin took care of that. Made it so you could be on welfare & not have to look for work.


Why are you making this political? It's been pointed out that there is a thread about this in the political forum. The government has nothing to do with my food bank. 

I do think there's a need, and I'm not alone, I don't feel I was wrong or wasting anyone's time by posting about it. I don't feel that my reminder was supposed to be gospel, and I didn't make up the term, "food insecure" I do think it's apt tho.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Wolf mom said:


> The fact that the parents are irresponsible is the main cause NOT irrelevant.
> 
> You are just not getting it - no one wants kids to be hungry - BUT your initial post did not state while feeding them, work on the root cause. All it did was show someone ready to enable irresponsible parental behavior.
> 
> Please don't get your panties in a twist anymore over statements that, in actuality are supporting your initial statement and taking it one step further. Trying to resolve an injustice is far healthier than just putting a band aid on it.


Post of the year award.


----------



## Oxankle

Pixie; you are full of beans. It is impossible to separate the hungry kids from the root cause, which is irresponsible or incapable parenting. If you do not work on the root cause you will have need for more and more food banks. 

When did you see a kid show up at a food bank? The lines I see are usually full of fat women who are there for their "free ....". Same as when I worked in a government building that housed the welfare department. Every "welfare day" the parking lot would be lined with pimp cars carrying several women--the men would wait in the car while the women went in to collect. 

Honest people down on their luck, yes. Lazy, shiftless bums I resent. Unthinking do-gooders are a wart on the butt of society.


----------



## Tricky Grama

No one ever said you made up any term at all. It is a far left term. And I'll prolly get this deleted for saying it again. But -I KNOW YOU did not make it up. You did not. I never said you did. If YOU think YOU are the far left, I cannot help that.

No children are starving in this country. We have too many programs. If parents do not know about said programs, it is not the kids' faults. 
There is somewhere in the BILLIONS of $$ wasted by our gov't on duplicate & non-working programs. Pick one. Feed kids. 
Gads.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Oxankle said:


> Pixie; you are full of beans. It is impossible to separate the hungry kids from the root cause, which is irresponsible or incapable parenting. If you do not work on the root cause you will have need for more and more food banks.
> 
> When did you see a kid show up at a food bank? The lines I see are usually full of fat women who are there for their "free ....". Same as when I worked in a government building that housed the welfare department. Every "welfare day" the parking lot would be lined with pimp cars carrying several women--the men would wait in the car while the women went in to collect.
> 
> Honest people down on their luck, yes. Lazy, shiftless bums I resent. Unthinking do-gooders are a wart on the butt of society.


Your post is so full of ugly that I don't know where to start... OK. The program I referenced is a summer one for when kids are out of school, the food bank will take food to a designated area and kids go there to eat. It's usually a park or a church. 

I'm not discussing the rest of the ugliness or your personal comment to me.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Oxankle said:


> Pixie; you are full of beans. It is impossible to separate the hungry kids from the root cause, which is irresponsible or incapable parenting. If you do not work on the root cause you will have need for more and more food banks.
> 
> When did you see a kid show up at a food bank? The lines I see are usually full of fat women who are there for their "free ....". Same as when I worked in a government building that housed the welfare department. Every "welfare day" the parking lot would be lined with pimp cars carrying several women--the men would wait in the car while the women went in to collect.
> 
> Honest people down on their luck, yes. Lazy, shiftless bums I resent. Unthinking do-gooders are a wart on the butt of society.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Riverdale

mmoetc said:


> Maybe we should teach these folks to feed themselves. http://m.military.com/daily-news/2014/08/18/study-finds-25-of-troops-use-food-banks.html


Maybe we should pay the people who swear an oath to protect and if need be die for their country more, and quit flushing it down the john on things like Solyndra........


----------



## mmoetc

Riverdale said:


> Maybe we should pay the people who swear an oath to protect and if need be die for their country more, and quit flushing it down the john on things like Solyndra........


How about rather than 900+ flag officers, their housing, staffs, planes and all the other accoutrements we pay our enlisted personnel? It's not a new problem. Many of you remember your youth as dad working and mom staying home. Mine was Dad serving and Mom working at the commissary and PX to help make ends meet.


----------



## Riverdale

For 8 month in 2009 I was laid off. We lived on less than $800 per month (family of 4). $800 for *all* expenses, light, heat, gas, food.

We bought cheap and in bulk. We planned menus weeks in advance. We ate cheap and (fairly) healthy. Gardened. 

So perhaps some people should put on their *grown-up pants* and quit spending money on tatoos and spinner rims for an Escalade......


----------



## Riverdale

mmoetc said:


> How about rather than 900+ flag officers, their housing, staffs, planes and all the other accoutrements we pay our enlisted personnel? It's not a new problem. Many of you remember your youth as dad working and mom staying home. Mine was Dad serving and Mom working at the commissary and PX to help make ends meet.



Correct. Why should the goobermint pay people $20/hr for 3 years to do nothing, butpay our troops a pittance.


----------



## mmoetc

Riverdale said:


> Correct. Why should the goobermint pay people $20/hr for 3 years to do nothing, butpay our troops a pittance.


Solyndra is over and done with. Was it a mistake? Probably. Do we continue to waste money on mansions, cooks, gardeners and private jets for more flag officers than we had during WWII, each now responsible for fewer men and smaller things than their counterparts in the past were. Yes. Should people only worry about the brave volunteers a day or two each year or when they think its expedient to make some political point? Apparently some do.


----------



## where I want to

I got there from the endless nagging of America. For instance the opening post said no child should be hungry or food insecure. And what does food insecure mean? 
I found the following from a advocacy groups web site-

"Food insecurity is the most broadly-used measure of food deprivation in the United States. The USDA defines food insecurity as meaning âconsistent access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources at times during the year.â

Acceptable shorthand terms for food insecurity are âhungry, or at risk of hunger,â and âhungry, or faced the threat of hunger.â Food insecurity can also accurately be described as âa financial juggling act, where sometimes the food ball gets dropped.â

In other words, the demands for charity have gone from "feed the starving children" to "no one should have to juggle the food ball due to finances." Since the first is clearly a need to be addressed, that is almost universally acceptable. However, expecting that people should pony up for someone who drops the financial ball is much less clear and almost everyone has had seen an example of people driving up in an expensive car, with clothing and accessories well beyond what they can afford themselves, and using food stamps at the groucery check out. And at one point, it happened with me at every shopping trip. Was that an occaisional 'financial dropped ball' or simply government program so liberalized that people use it like something they owned?
If a question was raised about this, then the old "you don't know what their situation is" was thrown out to dismiss those questions. And the old "so you want children starving" used to browbeat questioners into silence. As a weapon of propaganda, not reality.

The answer is that I don't want children starving, or even really hungry once. But neither do I want to be unable to use my money that I earned to buy things for people that I can not afford myself and who apparently can pay for it themselves.

The ever expanding definition, as supplied by those with a social agenda they wish to assign to me, of "poor" has crept too close to my own situation to be acceptable. I do not consider myself poor because I have to juggle financial balls. I consider it pretty normal and no cause for demands of charity.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> Solyndra is over and done with. Was it a mistake? Probably. Do we continue to waste money on mansions, cooks, gardeners and private jets for more flag officers than we had during WWII, each now responsible for fewer men and smaller things than their counterparts in the past were. Yes. Should people only worry about the brave volunteers a day or two each year or when they think its expedient to make some political point? Apparently some do.


No it's ands or buts.... but not probably.... sorry it was a scam to get money into the hands who paid for Obama's to be president. Cost his campaign nothing the tax payers foot the bill.

It simply was a cover to toss money.


----------



## Dutchie

Oxankle said:


> Pixie; you are full of beans. It is impossible to separate the hungry kids from the root cause, which is irresponsible or incapable parenting. If you do not work on the root cause you will have need for more and more food banks.
> 
> When did you see a kid show up at a food bank? The lines I see are usually full of fat women who are there for their "free ....". Same as when I worked in a government building that housed the welfare department. Every "welfare day" the parking lot would be lined with pimp cars carrying several women--the men would wait in the car while the women went in to collect.
> 
> Honest people down on their luck, yes. Lazy, shiftless bums I resent. Unthinking do-gooders are a wart on the butt of society.


OK Ox .... now you done did it.

1. If this country would get off its puritanical soapbox and teach about and make available reliable birth control I bet you there would be a LOT less hungry kids around. Teaching abstinence doesn't work. Just look at the birthrates of teenaged mothers in the bible belt vs northern states.

2. These "fat women" are fat because they are eating high carb foods like potatoes and pasta instead of fresh fruit and vegetables. They can afford the former and those items can feed a lot more mouths than the latter.

I am not saying that there are people out there who take advantage of the situation. Absolutely there are. But there are 3 segments of society that cannot fend for themselves: animals, children and the very elderly. As a civilized society it is our duty to look after these 3 groups. Did you know that in many cases children only get regular meals in school? And when the schools are closed because of weather, vacations, etc, they don't eat at all?

I don't know what the solution is. But what is NOT a solution is having children go hungry. We, as a country, ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

And for the love of the Goddess, can somebody please remove that "supporter" logo from my account?? I am not a supporter and want it removed. Only requested this 6 or 7 times. Thank you.


----------



## Dutchie

Riverdale said:


> For 8 month in 2009 I was laid off. We lived on less than $800 per month (family of 4). $800 for *all* expenses, light, heat, gas, food.
> 
> We bought cheap and in bulk. We planned menus weeks in advance. We ate cheap and (fairly) healthy. Gardened.
> 
> So perhaps some people should put on their *grown-up pants* and quit spending money on tatoos and spinner rims for an Escalade......


I agree that some people mis-spend their money. But do you want to tell me where people who live on the thrird floor in the city can garden to feed their family? Not everybody lives in the country.


----------



## where I want to

Dutchie said:


> I agree that some people mis-spend their money. But do you want to tell me where people who live on the thrird floor in the city can garden to feed their family? Not everybody lives in the country.


And there we go. My sister gardened on the 11th floor in DC while a nephew gardened on the roof top of his 8th floor apartment of San Franscisco. And there are acres of community gardens in many towns. But mostly they are occupied here with immigrants who have not been yet convinced they are helpless.

That is a major problem- the constant drumming into people's heads that they can't help themselves, which should be the first thing that occurs to someone, not the last action they are driven to.


----------



## wr

Dutchie said:


> OK Ox .... now you done did it.
> 
> 1. If this country would get off its puritanical soapbox and teach about and make available reliable birth control I bet you there would be a LOT less hungry kids around. Teaching abstinence doesn't work. Just look at the birthrates of teenaged mothers in the bible belt vs northern states.
> 
> 2. These "fat women" are fat because they are eating high carb foods like potatoes and pasta instead of fresh fruit and vegetables. They can afford the former and those items can feed a lot more mouths than the latter.
> 
> I am not saying that there are people out there who take advantage of the situation. Absolutely there are. But there are 3 segments of society that cannot fend for themselves: animals, children and the very elderly. As a civilized society it is our duty to look after these 3 groups. Did you know that in many cases children only get regular meals in school? And when the schools are closed because of weather, vacations, etc, they don't eat at all?
> 
> I don't know what the solution is. But what is NOT a solution is having children go hungry. We, as a country, ought to be ashamed of ourselves.
> 
> And for the love of the Goddess, can somebody please remove that "supporter" logo from my account?? I am not a supporter and want it removed. Only requested this 6 or 7 times. Thank you.



I wasn't aware you wanted it removed but if I'm not mistaken, that's something a member can do but I'll check into that for you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> I got there from the endless nagging of America. For instance the opening post said no child should be hungry or food insecure. And what does food insecure mean?
> I found the following from a advocacy groups web site-
> 
> "Food insecurity is the most broadly-used measure of food deprivation in the United States. The USDA defines food insecurity as meaning &#8220;consistent access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources at times during the year.&#8221;
> 
> Acceptable shorthand terms for food insecurity are &#8220;hungry, or at risk of hunger,&#8221; and &#8220;hungry, or faced the threat of hunger.&#8221; Food insecurity can also accurately be described as &#8220;a financial juggling act, where sometimes the food ball gets dropped.&#8221;
> 
> In other words, the demands for charity have gone from "feed the starving children" to "no one should have to juggle the food ball due to finances." Since the first is clearly a need to be addressed, that is almost universally acceptable. However, expecting that people should pony up for someone who drops the financial ball is much less clear and almost everyone has had seen an example of people driving up in an expensive car, with clothing and accessories well beyond what they can afford themselves, and using food stamps at the groucery check out. And at one point, it happened with me at every shopping trip. Was that an occaisional 'financial dropped ball' or simply government program so liberalized that people use it like something they owned?
> If a question was raised about this, then the old "you don't know what their situation is" was thrown out to dismiss those questions. And the old "so you want children starving" used to browbeat questioners into silence. As a weapon of propaganda, not reality.
> 
> The answer is that I don't want children starving, or even really hungry once. But neither do I want to be unable to use my money that I earned to buy things for people that I can not afford myself and who apparently can pay for it themselves.
> 
> The ever expanding definition, as supplied by those with a social agenda they wish to assign to me, of "poor" has crept too close to my own situation to be acceptable. I do not consider myself poor because I have to juggle financial balls. I consider it pretty normal and no cause for demands of charity.


The program that started this entire thread is by donation and completely voluntary.


----------



## JeffreyD

Dutchie said:


> I agree that some people mis-spend their money. But do you want to tell me where people who live on the thrird floor in the city can garden to feed their family? Not everybody lives in the country.


On their roof, at the park, set up a designated garden, planter boxes, empty buckets, etc...
There are many places one can grow food. They even have tomato plants that hang upside down! You can do it if you WANTED to. Seems it's just easier to get free stuff from the government or local food banks.


----------



## where I want to

Not to be vindictive but I removed mine myself.


----------



## wr

where I want to said:


> And there we go. My sister gardened on the 11th floor in DC while a nephew gardened on the roof top of his 8th floor apartment of San Franscisco. And there are acres of community gardens in many towns. But mostly they are occupied here with immigrants who have not been yet convinced they are helpless.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a major problem- the constant drumming into people's heads that they can't help themselves, which should be the first thing that occurs to someone, not the last action they are driven to.



Gardening is not allowed in low cost housing in my county and I know a group of women who have petitioned the town, county and posted requests for garden area. One of the local Hutterite colonies offered space but it is about 60 miles outside town.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Then maybe they should consider a change to a less vertical and urban location.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> And what does food insecure mean?


The symptoms were pretty obvious. When the kid first moved here he acted differently towards food. Some symptoms were subtle, like being very important to him for he and his mom to have their own bag of chips or cheese puffs. He was also not a picky eater at all. But other symptoms were a lot more obvious.

One time Alma & I came home with a pizza for all of us, but the boy and his mom were taking a nap. We ate half of the pizza while they were asleep. When the boy got up and came into my room I gave him the pizza. He took it to his mom and seemed very proud to bring it to her. A year later I did the same thing, but when I offered him the pizza he wasn't interested in taking to his mom. He was no longer food insecure.

You'll know it when you see it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

wr said:


> Gardening is not allowed in low cost housing in my county and I know a group of women who have petitioned the town, county and posted requests for garden area. One of the local Hutterite colonies offered space but it is about 60 miles outside town.


It's the same in my area. There is a gardening area in a local park that is set up for urban people to have a small plot. I don't think there are more than 10 plots with two raised beds for people with wheelchairs and such. It's located a good 5 miles from the city tho.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> The program that started this entire thread is by donation and completely voluntary.


I have that battle with my own tendency all the time and I guess is one reason I so resent the constant nagging. I have an innate desire to help when asked. I question can I afford it and its is a good thing. And feel bad when I can't.
But it has become so pervasive that I am asked constantly. I receive mailers constantly from every charity I ever contributed to, many having used up every dime I sent them in more requests over the years, and every tv news house or even entertainment talk show is touting for an endless number of charities.
So the constant redefining of 'need' has reached the breaking point. People who have touted obamacare subsidies they receive while posting about buying silver for doing well in the upcoming inflation they helped create for example. Or eliminating resources limits for various welfare programs. Or the benefits paid to the organizers of what have become very slick charities. 
That you respond to my concerns with things like "so you want children to starve" is not sweetly voluntary, it is emotion extortion.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> The symptoms were pretty obvious. When the kid first moved here he acted differently towards food. Some symptoms were subtle, like being very important to him for he and his mom to have their own bag of chips or cheese puffs. He was also not a picky eater at all. But other symptoms were a lot more obvious.
> 
> One time Alma & I came home with a pizza for all of us, but the boy and his mom were taking a nap. We ate half of the pizza while they were asleep. When the boy got up and came into my room I gave him the pizza. He took it to his mom and seemed very proud to bring it to her. A year later I did the same thing, but when I offered him the pizza he wasn't interested in taking to his mom. He was no longer food insecure.
> 
> You'll know it when you see it.


And you miss the point- that you demand that the goal is to make him careless of what is given is not a virtue.


----------



## where I want to

wr said:


> Gardening is not allowed in low cost housing in my county and I know a group of women who have petitioned the town, county and posted requests for garden area. One of the local Hutterite colonies offered space but it is about 60 miles outside town.


Difficulty is not the end. I have gardened in pots on a porch. It's the will to overcome that succeeds when nothing else will.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> I have that battle with my own tendency all the time and I guess is one reason I so resent the constant nagging. I have an innate desire to help when asked. I question can I afford it and its is a good thing. And feel bad when I can't.
> But it has become so pervasive that I am asked constantly. I receive mailers constantly from every charity I ever contributed to, many having used up every dime I sent them in more requests over the years, and every tv news house or even entertainment talk show is touting for an endless number of charities.
> So the constant redefining of 'need' has reached the breaking point. People who have touted obamacare subsidies they receive while posting about buying silver for doing well in the upcoming inflation they helped create for example. Or eliminating resources limits for various welfare programs. Or the benefits paid to the organizers of what have become very slick charities.
> That you respond to my concerns with things like "so you want children to starve" is not sweetly voluntary, it is emotion extortion.


I don't see how you can blame your issue on a program, commercial, mailing, etc. You are capable of making your own decisions, correct?


----------



## J.T.M.

Irish Pixie said:


> With classes ending for the summer many kids that rely on school food programs will go hungry. If you are able, please donate to No Kid Hungry, your local food bank, and/or your local food program.
> 
> There shouldn't be a single hungry or food insecure kid in this country.


I havn't read beyond the OP above so I don't know whats been said , by whom or if there has been a thread drift ect. :
While I can not stand the phrase " food insecure kids " I agree with the premise of this thread . Regardless of the whys and reasons , lets help those in need . Most of us could clean out our cupboards and donate the cans of soup and tins of tuna thats been there for 3 + months and feed a couple families .


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't see how you can blame your issue on a program, commercial, mailing, etc. You are capable of making your own decisions, correct?


Oh so now that I have concern it is my personal defect, when before my lack of concern was my personal defect.
Why not just face the problem is you have a easy and vicious way of attacking anyone who disagrees with you, or even worse does not appear to rush to agree. You make it personal. And complain about it getting personal in return. 
Now you are free wheeling insults because the checks on this forum have been removed. Well, surprise surprise, that is a two way street, even if the checks that remain have tilted in the other direction.
You can argue issues, or you can mud sling, or you can demand that you express your opinion and nobody be allowed to respond, but in the end freedom cut for your attacks allows the same in return.
If that policy becomes more restrictive again, which it should, I will be fine as I can argue without name calling or excessive sarcasm. I wonder if you can.
Or more to the point for a business, whether the forum can allow this to go on, despite the new policies. 
Oh well, if i'm banned, I know it will be in the defense against the snarks. Because it is not the opinion I protest against, it's the tactics.


----------



## J.T.M.

Oh ... I see that there has been a thread drift :/


----------



## arabian knight

Most all of these give away entitlement programs should be cut WAY back to let ONLY those truly in need get into them Period.


----------



## AngieM2

Dutchie - removing badges

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ad...ncements-support/514194-disabling-badges.html

It's easy, you do it yourself.


----------



## Evons hubby

J.T.M. said:


> Most of us could clean out our cupboards and donate the cans of soup and tins of tuna thats been there for 3 + months and feed a couple families .


But if I do that then my pantry would be empty.


----------



## Dutchie

JeffreyD said:


> On their roof, at the park, set up a designated garden, planter boxes, empty buckets, etc...
> There are many places one can grow food. They even have tomato plants that hang upside down! You can do it if you WANTED to. Seems it's just easier to get free stuff from the government or local food banks.


Surely you don't suggest you can feed an entire family for any period of time off a hanging tomato plant??

Do you have any idea how many pounds of produce it takes to feed a family for a year?


----------



## Dutchie

AngieM2 said:


> Dutchie - removing badges
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ad...ncements-support/514194-disabling-badges.html
> 
> It's easy, you do it yourself.


I will give that a wirl. However, since I didn't put it there I thought that perhaps the person who did could do it.


----------



## Dutchie

nchobbyfarm said:


> Then maybe they should consider a change to a less vertical and urban location.


Sure. Moving costs money. And being in a less urban environment takes them away for access to stores etc.

You people really ought to start thinking things through before you post. Good lawd.


----------



## AngieM2

Dutchie said:


> I will give that a wirl. However, since I didn't put it there I thought that perhaps the person who did could do it.


If they change your user group you will loses PM box size etc.
Group Builder gave that status to posting members for the week they took over. Then made the badges. Since they are not around, there is that way for anyone to make them not show, but still have the larger PM box, etc.

Now, I'll step back out of this thread.


----------



## BlackFeather

I live across the street from those considered poor in our society, I've skimmed this thread, and some points. Some have said take the kids away from the unsuitable parents and adopt them out, Believe me no one in their right mind would want these kids. The were seldom if ever disciplined. They should grow gardens, it has been tried, the kids destroy the plants. Do community gardens, if you do your stuff will be stolen. They get food stamps, the rate is 50 cents on the dollar, "I'll buy you 100 dollars of food you give me 50 dollars so I can buy booze, drugs, smokes or whatever. I'll send my kids over to your house to eat." I know what they feed their kids, fast food. The trash from it is all over the streets where they live. Cook from scratch, too much work and they don't know how and don't care to learn. Go to the food give away at the church, "I don't want all those vegetables, I don't know how to freeze them for later use." Most of the kids don't have fathers and the man in their life is just their mother's boy friend. Their sisters and brothers all have different last names. All that said it is sad to see a hungry child, but if you feed one, the whole neighborhood will be by for lunch. "If you go to Johnny's house to eat Jr, then we don't need to buy as much food and I can buy that case of beer I wanted and get you some candy." I'm not exaggerating, these people are experts at using others and the system. Why are they poor, why are they hungry? Their lack of morals makes them that way. We have helped some from time to time but you can't make it a habit or they start to use you. Going hungry once in a while won't hurt anyone, science actually says it may be healthy. It has been proven that animals that don't have access all the time to food actually live longer. I have seen studies that suggest that during times of food scarcity the body consumes it's older more damaged cells, cells in which cancer is more likely to occur. As said before an empty belly make a good motivator. We have contact with a little girl across the street, she hasn't had the easiest life and she sees having a job means having money which means having the things you want. Her older sister was spoiled, poorly disciplined and expects everything to be handed to her, now that the family's times are tough the older sister is a real problem, very rebellious. There is real hope for the younger girl, and their is doubt about how the older girl will turn out.


----------



## where I want to

Dutchie said:


> Surely you don't suggest you can feed an entire family for any period of time off a hanging tomato plant??
> 
> Do you have any idea how many pounds of produce it takes to feed a family for a year?


Again, the point is to do what you can for yourself before asking others to do it. So no one but apparently the advocates for unlimited money for welfare have suggested that all support be removed from everyone. I also suspect that most here have a very good idea of the amount needed, more than others, as they grow their own.


----------



## JeffreyD

Dutchie said:


> Surely you don't suggest you can feed an entire family for any period of time off a hanging tomato plant??
> 
> Do you have any idea how many pounds of produce it takes to feed a family for a year?


Just curious, why did you fester on the hanging tomato plant and disregard the rest of my post? My suggestion is do whatever you can to help yourself, every little bit counts, right?

You seem to imply that families should not even try or attempt to provide for themselves, and would rather have these families on welfare! Is that correct?


----------



## where I want to

Dutchie said:


> Sure. Moving costs money. And being in a less urban environment takes them away for access to stores etc.
> 
> You people really ought to start thinking things through before you post. Good lawd.


Always why it's impossible despite many examples of how it is possible. But I will say that people who move here who were on welfare tend to stay on it. They only move because rents are cheaper. It even has the advantage of no one demanding they work as jobs are less plentiful. And you will still pass many places with fruit falling and rotting with no one even picking it up. 
A friend and I once over produced canned fruit because we simply could not stand to see the waste and asked to pick some fruit not wanted. There was way too much available.


----------



## J.T.M.

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But if I do that then my pantry would be empty.


 If that is the case , then perhaps you can relate to the fact that not everyone is blessed enough to have .89 cents for a can of corn or $ 1.50 for a lb. of chicken .


----------



## Evons hubby

Dutchie said:


> You people really ought to start thinking things through before you post. Good lawd.


Amen!


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> Oh so now that I have concern it is my personal defect, when before my lack of concern was my personal defect.
> Why not just face the problem is you have a easy and vicious way of attacking anyone who disagrees with you, or even worse does not appear to rush to agree. You make it personal. And complain about it getting personal in return.
> Now you are free wheeling insults because the checks on this forum have been removed. Well, surprise surprise, that is a two way street, even if the checks that remain have tilted in the other direction.
> You can argue issues, or you can mud sling, or you can demand that you express your opinion and nobody be allowed to respond, but in the end freedom cut for your attacks allows the same in return.
> If that policy becomes more restrictive again, which it should, I will be fine as I can argue without name calling or excessive sarcasm. I wonder if you can.
> Or more to the point for a business, whether the forum can allow this to go on, despite the new policies.
> Oh well, if i'm banned, I know it will be in the defense against the snarks. Because it is not the opinion I protest against, it's the tactics.


It wasn't meant to be personal and I didn't intend it that way. 

By your own admission your issue has nothing to do with an outside entity, it has to do with you.


----------



## Evons hubby

J.T.M. said:


> If that is the case , then perhaps you can relate to the fact that not everyone is blessed enough to have .89 cents for a can of corn or $ 1.50 for a lb. of chicken .


Thats pretty easy for me to relate to... been there and done all the lean times I care to do. When I found myself in that sorta predicament I went to work and got myself back on firm ground. Working for farmers at a buck an hour it takes all day to earn enough to buy groceries and keep a family fed.... but it can be done.... I know it can coz I did it.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> It wasn't meant to be personal and I didn't intend it that way.
> 
> By your own admission your issue has nothing to do with an outside entity, it has to do with you.


It has to do with the ridiculous ever expanding demands of outside entities. And I admit that this thread has helped to clarify my feelings. There will never be a limit to the demands of those spending other people's money. And very little courtesy or respect in making demands. For trying to guilt people into giving money is extortion. 
If you had said "please donate" that was a request. The added lecture about no child should be food "insecure" was what made it extortion. That you can't see the difference is reason to say that it is a deliberate tactic to extort money only you absolve yourself from the usual negative connotations by saying its for someone else. Such extortion is endearing when used only on people who can afford it but has become both a massive attack and a government mandate. So it's endearing quality is gone. All used up.


----------



## J.T.M.

arabian knight said:


> Most all of these give away entitlement programs should be cut WAY back to let ONLY those truly in need get into them Period.


 Boeing getting $ 13,174,075,797 .GM getting $3,495,237,703 , Dow Chem. getting $ 1,408,228,374 but we worry about a hood rat getting $ 78.00 EBT card 
 

http://mic.com/articles/85101/10-corporations-receiving-massive-public-subsidies-from-taxpayers

And crap like this : 
National Endowment for the Arts ... $1.53 million
http://arts.gov/news/2013/national-...-guidelines-available-fiscal-year-2014-grants


----------



## Declan

Tricky Grama said:


> So sorry about your brother. Prayers & good thoughts.
> 
> Patty


Thanks. One of the thing that drives me the most on developing a market garden type homestead set up is to give him the opportunity to do what he can on the days that he can so he feels like he is pulling some of his weight. It is that he can do some things on good runs with his foot that keeps him from being able to get disability. Nobody is going to hire someone who can work every now and then and casual laboring won't make you self-sufficient. He tried that for a tree company and they stopped working with him because they have to have somebody to work the day they need them to work and those were not always the good days. He mows a few yards and will pick up odd jobs when he can. One of my neighbors asked me if something had happened to him because he had seen him getting in a truck this week and he looked like he could barely stand up. He'll keep doing what he can do and I will keep doing what I can do and be grateful it isn't me in his situation.


----------



## J.T.M.

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats pretty easy for me to relate to... been there and done all the lean times I care to do. When I found myself in that sorta predicament I went to work and got myself back on firm ground. Working for farmers at a buck an hour it takes all day to earn enough to buy groceries and keep a family fed.... but it can be done.... I know it can coz I did it.


Not to say my own story is more drastic or more noteworthy then yours but trust me, life hasn't always been choice.But ... I look over across the room at a women who's childhood , I am confident , would make your and my childhood look like a utopia . We need to remember that just because we got out and worked our tails off to moved up doesn't mean everyone has the capabilities to do the same .


----------



## Oxankle

JTM; Whether we agree or not, Boeing, GM, Dow and a host of others get the money they do because they create jobs. 

I personally consider the "bidding" for these plants a form of extortion that should be outlawed, but it is not outlawed and cities are willing to put up the money and the tax exemptions in order to get the jobs. A payroll, if I recall my eco classes correctly, is multiplied seven times over in the community. 

If you give Boeing 87 Mil, and their payroll is 25 Mil per annum you wind up moving $175 Mil PER YEAR thru the community. At ten percent (my current sales tax here in Arkansas, that is about a 5 year payout, or thereabouts. 

Most businesses would consider that a pretty good bet. (OK, you can quibble about the fact that not all that $175 Mil will be taxed, but it is still considered worth doing by the people who have to make the decisions.)

In summary, some of the poor (those who would work if they could find jobs) will come off the dole and hold their heads high.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> It has to do with the ridiculous ever expanding demands of outside entities. And I admit that this thread has helped to clarify my feelings. There will never be a limit to the demands of those spending other people's money. And very little courtesy or respect in making demands. For trying to guilt people into giving money is extortion.
> If you had said "please donate" that was a request. The added lecture about no child should be food "insecure" was what made it extortion. That you can't see the difference is reason to say that it is a deliberate tactic to extort money only you absolve yourself from the usual negative connotations by saying its for someone else. Such extortion is endearing when used only on people who can afford it but has become both a massive attack and a government mandate. So it's endearing quality is gone. All used up.


My original post: "With classes ending for the summer many kids that rely on school food programs will go hungry. *If you are able, please donate* to No Kid Hungry, your local food bank, and/or your local food program. 

There shouldn't be a single hungry or food insecure kid in this country."

If you aren't able to comfortably afford it, don't donate.


----------



## arabian knight

Oxankle said:


> JTM; Whether we agree or not, Boeing, GM, Dow and a host of others get the money they do because they create jobs.
> 
> I personally consider the "bidding" for these plants a form of extortion that should be outlawed, but it is not outlawed and cities are willing to put up the money and the tax exemptions in order to get the jobs. A payroll, if I recall my eco classes correctly, is multiplied seven times over in the community.
> 
> If you give Boeing 87 Mil, and their payroll is 25 Mil per annum you wind up moving $175 Mil PER YEAR thru the community. At ten percent (my current sales tax here in Arkansas, that is about a 5 year payout, or thereabouts.
> 
> Most businesses would consider that a pretty good bet. (OK, you can quibble about the fact that not all that $175 Mil will be taxed, but it is still considered worth doing by the people who have to make the decisions.)
> 
> In summary, some of the poor (those who would work if they could find jobs) will come off the dole and hold their heads high.


Ah don't sweat it those that have it in for the rich will ALWAYS have it in for the rich even when they do create jobs put millions to work, but who cares as long as they can get more freebies from the government instituted so more and more Americans can just be sucking off the government teat that is all.
And by doing so the Government then Controls those people and that is what this is all about control over the population by the government. The heck with people making up their own choices in the game of life. And that post had nothing to do with a few hungry kids in the first place.


----------



## J.T.M.

Oxankle said:


> JTM; Whether we agree or not, Boeing, GM, Dow and a host of others get the


 Ox , I agree with you to a degree .
I grew up in very very poor home in a very very very poor neighborhood so I can relate to the hungry kids . I think a lot of people posting here forget ( or never knew ) what its like to have nothing , Maybe a box of powder milk in the cupboard , but thats for the baby . I have seen and lived in poverty first hand and understand that its not always a case of Dad being a junkie who skipped out , or Mom being to obese to get off the couch ,But is a lot of times events beyond ones control . I wonder how many of these ghetto queens and hood rats Boeing or GM or Dow Chemicals will hire ? Im betting zero .


----------



## Evons hubby

J.T.M. said:


> We need to remember that just because we got out and worked our tails off to moved up doesn't mean everyone has the capabilities to do the same .


Yeppers, there are those among us that simply cant make it due to severe mental or physical handicaps.... and those folks could use some help. The problem to me is I do not believe for one minute that nearly half of our nations population falls into that category.


----------



## J.T.M.

arabian knight said:


> Ah don't sweat it those that have it in for the rich will ALWAYS have it in for the rich even when they do create jobs put millions to work, but who cares as long as they can get more freebies from the government instituted so more and more Americans can just be sucking off the government teat that is all.
> And by doing so the Government then Controls those people and that is what this is all about control over the population by the government. The heck with people making up their own choices in the game of life. And that post had nothing to do with a few hungry kids in the first place.


The problem with America is partisan politics ... case in point ^^^^^


----------



## arabian knight

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, there are those among us that simply cant make it due to severe mental or physical handicaps.... and those folks could use some help. The problem to me is I do not believe for one minute that nearly half of our nations population falls into that category.


No that is so over blown by the left it is laughable. Very few in this country are POOR, are poor and hungry like those in the 3rd world parts. There are way to many cable tv's ac units cell phones if not one maybe 3 or 4, two or three cars in the driveway. And then there are those that pan handle making 10's of 1,000s a year Tax Free~!
Its just that the OVERMEN keeps rising the limits to say what is Poverty and what is not. Baloney big time.


----------



## Evons hubby

J.T.M. said:


> I wonder how many of these ghetto queens and hood rats Boeing or GM or Dow Chemicals will hire ? Im betting zero .


I would ask how many of them have bothered to apply for work with Boeing or GM or Dow Chemical and can pass a drug test?


----------



## J.T.M.

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, there are those among us that simply cant make it due to severe mental or physical handicaps.... and those folks could use some help. The problem to me is I do not believe for one minute that nearly half of our nations population falls into that category.


You would have to look long and hard to find anyone who would disagree with this ... or maybe just go to the DU website


----------



## J.T.M.

arabian knight said:


> No that is so over blown by the left it is laughable. Very few in this country are POOR, are poor and hungry like those in the 3rd world parts. There are way to many cable tv's ac units cell phones if not one maybe 3 or 4, two or three cars in the driveway. And then there are those that pan handle making 10's of 1,000s a year Tax Free~!
> Its just that the OVERMEN keeps rising the limits to say what is Poverty and what is not. Baloney big time.


Classic ... some of us suffer from a lack of original thought


----------



## Tricky Grama

where I want to said:


> I got there from the endless nagging of America. For instance the opening post said no child should be hungry or food insecure. And what does food insecure mean?
> I found the following from a advocacy groups web site-
> 
> "Food insecurity is the most broadly-used measure of food deprivation in the United States. The USDA defines food insecurity as meaning &#8220;consistent access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources at times during the year.&#8221;
> 
> Acceptable shorthand terms for food insecurity are &#8220;hungry, or at risk of hunger,&#8221; and &#8220;hungry, or faced the threat of hunger.&#8221; Food insecurity can also accurately be described as &#8220;a financial juggling act, where sometimes the food ball gets dropped.&#8221;
> 
> In other words, the demands for charity have gone from "feed the starving children" to "no one should have to juggle the food ball due to finances." Since the first is clearly a need to be addressed, that is almost universally acceptable. However, expecting that people should pony up for someone who drops the financial ball is much less clear and almost everyone has had seen an example of people driving up in an expensive car, with clothing and accessories well beyond what they can afford themselves, and using food stamps at the groucery check out. And at one point, it happened with me at every shopping trip. Was that an occaisional 'financial dropped ball' or simply government program so liberalized that people use it like something they owned?
> If a question was raised about this, then the old "you don't know what their situation is" was thrown out to dismiss those questions. And the old "so you want children starving" used to browbeat questioners into silence. As a weapon of propaganda, not reality.
> 
> The answer is that I don't want children starving, or even really hungry once. But neither do I want to be unable to use my money that I earned to buy things for people that I can not afford myself and who apparently can pay for it themselves.
> 
> The ever expanding definition, as supplied by those with a social agenda they wish to assign to me, of "poor" has crept too close to my own situation to be acceptable. I do not consider myself poor because I have to juggle financial balls. I consider it pretty normal and no cause for demands of charity.


Post of the day award.

I think most w/reason can see the "food insecure" instead of "Starving" mantra is akin to the "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming". 
The left agenda has to keep up, so "Food insecure" cannot be challenged like "starving" can. 
Kinda like "...only a blob of cells..." is disproven by science & "evolved" to "Women's Health".


----------



## where I want to

J.T.M. said:


> Not to say my own story is more drastic or more noteworthy then yours but trust me, life hasn't always been choice.But ... I look over across the room at a women who's childhood , I am confident , would make your and my childhood look like a utopia . We need to remember that just because we got out and worked our tails off to moved up doesn't mean everyone has the capabilities to do the same .


But that is an issue. If there could only be some not arbitrary standard of expectation.
In my own family, there was at least one who had a childhood so bad that it was Dickinsoneques. Abandoned by the mother and left with the father who enrolled him in a boarding school and then disappeared, never paying the charges. He was passed from private home to private home as needing charity and ending up in a Catholic School orphanage. 
Yet I never heard him say anything but grateful words to those who took him in with no hope of compensation for as long as they could. Never a hard word when they couldn't keep him longer. And every year he sent a donation to that last Catholic school in gratitude for caring for him and his brother, even though they were not Catholic. And took care of his mother and father's needs in their old age, although I know he did not like being around them. There had never been a reconciliation, just a sort of stepping around.
So then, if that person could make their way successfully, why is that not honored as at least a goal? Why is it more important to excuse the failures rather than point to the successes?
Does success breed success and failure failure?


----------



## JeffreyD

J.T.M. said:


> Classic ... some of us suffer from a lack of original thought


Some have an amazing amount of clarity too! 
I see this waste daily and its a disgusting misuse of tax dollars. Billions and billions down the drain. That money could be used for the truly needy.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Dutchie said:


> Sure. Moving costs money. And being in a less urban environment takes them away for access to stores etc.
> 
> You people really ought to start thinking things through before you post. Good lawd.


Actually being in an urban environment gives less access to stores. Large cities are always trying to figure out ways to lure grocery stores, etc, in. 
Then you have a CVS who finally agrees to a downtown location...


----------



## gapeach

Then it gets looted and burned by thugs.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Declan said:


> Thanks. One of the thing that drives me the most on developing a market garden type homestead set up is to give him the opportunity to do what he can on the days that he can so he feels like he is pulling some of his weight. It is that he can do some things on good runs with his foot that keeps him from being able to get disability. Nobody is going to hire someone who can work every now and then and casual laboring won't make you self-sufficient. He tried that for a tree company and they stopped working with him because they have to have somebody to work the day they need them to work and those were not always the good days. He mows a few yards and will pick up odd jobs when he can. One of my neighbors asked me if something had happened to him because he had seen him getting in a truck this week and he looked like he could barely stand up. He'll keep doing what he can do and I will keep doing what I can do and be grateful it isn't me in his situation.


I tend to forget to be thankful. Then I read about your brother, or see a lady younger than i am in a wheelchair. Or watch the flooding & death not that many miles from us. Sincerely, I hope he improves.


----------



## J.T.M.

JeffreyD said:


> Some have an amazing amount of clarity too!
> I see this waste daily and its a disgusting misuse of tax dollars. Billions and billions down the drain. That money could be used for the truly needy.


Are you suggesting that spitting out a political talking point - word for word even - is a " clarity of thought "  

I will have to go back and reread the op again as I believe his/ her suggestion was for John Q Citizen to donate to food pantries thus. helping to eliminate the need for big gov. dollars .


----------



## Irish Pixie

J.T.M. said:


> Are you suggesting that spitting out a political talking point - word for word even - is a " clarity of thought "
> 
> I will have to go back and reread the op again as I believe his/ her suggestion was for John Q Citizen to donate to food pantries thus. helping to eliminate the need for big gov. dollars .


'Twas. I'm a her.


----------



## JeffreyD

J.T.M. said:


> Are you suggesting that spitting out a political talking point - word for word even - is a " clarity of thought "
> 
> I will have to go back and reread the op again as I believe his/ her suggestion was for John Q Citizen to donate to food pantries thus. helping to eliminate the need for big gov. dollars .


Sometimes political talking points are very clear!


----------



## J.T.M.

where I want to said:


> But that is an issue. If there could only be some not arbitrary standard of expectation.
> In my own family, there was at least one who had a childhood so bad that it was Dickinsoneques. *Abandoned by the mother and left with the father who enrolled him in a boarding school and then disappeared, never paying the charges. He was passed from private home to private home as needing charity and ending up in a Catholic School orphanage.
> Yet I never heard him say anything but grateful words to those who took him in with no hope of compensation for as long as they could. Never a hard word when they couldn't keep him longer. And every year he sent a donation to that last Catholic school in gratitude for caring for him and his brother, even though they were not Catholic. And took care of his mother and father's needs in their old age,* although I know he did not like being around them. There had never been a reconciliation, just a sort of stepping around.
> So then, if that person could make their way successfully, why is that not honored as at least a goal? Why is it more important to excuse the failures rather than point to the successes?
> Does success breed success and failure failure?


Awesome story , I read and reread the bolded part more then a few times .I still get goose bumps from it . This , to me anyway , is America . We embrace the fallen , we help them up , and hopefully when back on their own two feet they remember where they came from and what they went thrugh. Then maybe they drop off a few cans of soup at the pantry on their way home from the store


----------



## wr

where I want to said:


> Difficulty is not the end. I have gardened in pots on a porch. It's the will to overcome that succeeds when nothing else will.



I've done the same but in my little town, there are very strict rules in low cost housing. No, potted plants, not flower beds, etc and violating said rules result in eviction. I'd gladly offer garden space but I have no irrigation set up and my well can't support a garden.


----------



## Wanda

I have been reading all of these posts with great interest. I was setting on the porch enjoying the sight and smell of a much needed rain when the solution came to me. We need to reverse Social Security! No one anymore wants do do the proper thing and die when they are 64 years old. We should pay the SS money to the youngsters up to about age 21. Then they can go on to be productive as long as they can aford to on there own nickle. They will not need all those expensive knee and hip replacements that grandma and grampa got along just fine without. We will get more bang for our buck since they will grow to be productive instead of wanting to rent a high priced room in a fancy nursing home and hire a driver to escort them around.


----------



## wr

I'm not sure how this became such a hot topic. If someone feels that children need a bit of a hand and suggests that some voluntary programs are helpful, it seems to me that one has the choice of voluntarily contributing or not but there is no mandatory requirement. 

I can't see how that make's someone's politics of beliefs wrong or worthy of scorn. 

In my opinion, communities benefit greatly from volunteerism and that extends way beyond a couple cans of soup or a donation to a lunch program. The simple act of donating a pair of used cleats or a baseball glove can get a kid into an after school sports program, time spent in a senior's facility give the elderly comfort, volunteer drivers help seniors stay in their homes longer, after school reading programs just may help a child's literacy level and most 4H programs can always use folks who can give a couple hours a week.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> The program that started this entire thread is by donation and completely voluntary.


Was that a criteria of yours? Donations from whom?

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a Federal program that helps supplement the diets of low-income Americans, including elderly people, by providing them with emergency food and nutrition assistance at no cost.

Through TEFAP, the *U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)* purchases USDA Foods, including processing and packaging, and makes it available to State Distributing Agencies. 

The amount of food that each State receives out of the total amount of food that is provided is based on the number of unemployed persons and the number of people with incomes below the poverty level in the State. 

*States provide the food to local agencies that they have selected, usually food banks*, which in turn, distribute the food to local organizations such as soup kitchens and *food pantries* that *directly serve the public*. 

States also provide the food to other types of local organizations, such as community action agencies, which distribute the foods directly to low-income households.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/frequently-asked-questions


----------



## J.T.M.

wr said:


> I'm not sure how this became such a hot topic. If someone feels that children need a bit of a hand and suggests that some voluntary programs are helpful, it seems to me that one has the choice of voluntarily contributing or not but there is no mandatory requirement.
> 
> I can't see how that make's someone's politics of beliefs wrong or worthy of scorn.
> 
> In my opinion, communities benefit greatly from volunteerism and that extends way beyond a couple cans of soup or a donation to a lunch program. The simple act of donating a pair of used cleats or a baseball glove can get a kid into an after school sports program, time spent in a senior's facility give the elderly comfort, volunteer drivers help seniors stay in their homes longer, after school reading programs just may help a child's literacy level and most 4H programs can always use folks who can give a couple hours a week.


 Everything these days seem to be not just political , but the worse kind of politics - blind partisan politics ~ sigh ~ 
Did you know that volunteering makes for a happier ,healthier mind and body ? It also has a trickle down effect . I helped a guy suffering from PTSD .His head was so scrambled he couldn't go out doors at all .Last year I planted a flower bed out side his window .This yr. the dudes all over the place helping folks in their gardens . 

I have found the following to be true in my personal life :
.
" Helping others kindles happiness, as many studies have demonstrated. When researchers at the London School of Economics examined the relationship between volunteering and measures of happiness in a large group of American adults, they found the more people volunteered, the happier they were, according to a study in Social Science and Medicine. Compared with people who never volunteered, the odds of being âvery happyâ rose 7% among those who volunteer monthly and 12% for people who volunteer every two to four weeks." 
Heres a link that no one will check out but ... http://www.helpguide.org/articles/work-career/volunteering-and-its-surprising-benefits.htm


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> Was that a criteria of yours? Donations from whom?
> 
> The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a Federal program that helps supplement the diets of low-income Americans, including elderly people, by providing them with emergency food and nutrition assistance at no cost.
> 
> Through TEFAP, the *U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)* purchases USDA Foods, including processing and packaging, and makes it available to State Distributing Agencies.
> 
> The amount of food that each State receives out of the total amount of food that is provided is based on the number of unemployed persons and the number of people with incomes below the poverty level in the State.
> 
> *States provide the food to local agencies that they have selected, usually food banks*, which in turn, distribute the food to local organizations such as soup kitchens and *food pantries* that *directly serve the public*.
> 
> States also provide the food to other types of local organizations, such as community action agencies, which distribute the foods directly to low-income households.
> 
> http://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/frequently-asked-questions


The Food Bank of the Southern Tier is part of Catholic Charities and I can't figure out if they receive government grants or not. I did look, but since I really don't care, I didn't look very hard.

Knock yourself out. You probably wouldn't have believed me anyway. 

http://www.foodbankst.org/usr/2013 Catholic Charities 990.pdf

http://www.foodbankst.org/usr/2013 Catholic Charities 990.pdf

The bottom line is if you're interested- donate. If not- don't. Choice, it's a wonderful thing.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> And you miss the point- that you demand that the goal is to make him careless of what is given is not a virtue.


No, the point is that a young kid shouldn't have to be afraid that he won't always have food available.


----------



## wr

J.T.M. said:


> Everything these days seem to be not just political , but the worse kind of politics - blind partisan politics ~ sigh ~
> Did you know that volunteering makes for a happier ,healthier mind and body ? It also has a trickle down effect . I helped a guy suffering from PTSD .His head was so scrambled he couldn't go out doors at all .Last year I planted a flower bed out side his window .This yr. the dudes all over the place helping folks in their gardens .
> 
> I have found the following to be true in my personal life :
> .
> " Helping others kindles happiness, as many studies have demonstrated. When researchers at the London School of Economics examined the relationship between volunteering and measures of happiness in a large group of American adults, they found the more people volunteered, the happier they were, according to a study in Social Science and Medicine. Compared with people who never volunteered, the odds of being âvery happyâ rose 7% among those who volunteer monthly and 12% for people who volunteer every two to four weeks."
> Heres a link that no one will check out but ... http://www.helpguide.org/articles/work-career/volunteering-and-its-surprising-benefits.htm


I find much the same. I don't always have a terrific cash flow because of a couple fledgling businesses but I do know that a box of timbits and a quick visit to the lodge in town will brighten even the worst kind of bad day and I always leave with a smile.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nevada said:


> No, the point is that a young kid shouldn't have to be afraid that he won't always have food available.


Exactly. The thought of a kid in this country having to worry about when they'll have food makes me want to cry.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> The Food Bank of the Southern Tier is part of Catholic Charities and I can't figure out if they receive government grants or not. I did look, but since I really don't care, I didn't look very hard.
> 
> Knock yourself out. You probably wouldn't have believed me anyway.
> 
> http://www.foodbankst.org/usr/2013 Catholic Charities 990.pdf
> 
> http://www.foodbankst.org/usr/2013 Catholic Charities 990.pdf
> 
> The bottom line is if you're interested- donate. If not- don't. Choice, it's a wonderful thing.


The taxes that fund the USDA are not a choice.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> The taxes that fund the USDA are not a choice.


Oh well. You have nothing to do with the amount I donate, do you? You don't pay taxes on it, I do. 

Sigh. I assume you feel your tax dollars would be better spent elsewhere? 

Why is this such a huge deal for you? It's what I find important and worthwhile but since you obviously don't, why are you so hung up on it?

ETA: At the end of the day, I am at peace because my intentions are good and my heart is pure.


----------



## J.T.M.

HDRider said:


> The taxes that fund the USDA are not a choice.


Maybe my fellow rightwing friends will not mind so much being taxed to fund the USDA if they realized how much BIG BIZ they are subsidizing thru. the USDA 
:ashamed:

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda...01/0012.xml&printable=true&contentidonly=true
Following are examples of USDA's projects underway and accomplishments to date:

USDA issued a formal Request For Information to initiate discussion with private sector partners willing to work with us to establish a bio-fuels pumping station in Washington DC, which would serve the general public and more than 800 flex fuel vehicles in the federal fleet. http://www1.fbo.gov/spg/
In 2006, USDA launched BioPreferred, a procurement program that serves to increase the procurement and use of biobased products by Federal agencies. USDA has developed an easy access online Designated Biobased Product Catalog www.usda.gov/biopreferred as a resource of identifying biobased products.
USDA spent nearly $1.7 billion on energy-related programs between 2001 and 2005. In 2006 alone, USDA made available more than $270 million on these programs in areas such as commercialization, research, infrastructure development, and technical support. Currently, there are 110 operational ethanol plants in 19 states with another 73 under construction and new proposals at an astounding rate.
In 2005, Secretary Johanns appointed a USDA Energy Council for the purpose of coordinating and examining departmental programs and authorities, ensuring they fit into a comprehensive energy strategy.
In 2000, USDA established the Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI), an interagency working group with the Department of Energy, to coordinate and accelerate all Federal biobased products and bioenergy research and development.
Last October, President Bush offered the keynote address at the Advanced Renewable Energy Conference, hosted by USDA and the Department of Energy. The joint conference brought together the brightest minds in government and industry, as well as key stakeholders from the financial, agricultural and energy sectors, to address the challenges and opportunities to advance renewable energy.
USDA's Agriculture Research Service (ARS) scientists have developed improved fermentation organisms and are making other significant steps toward achieving the technology needed for commercial production of cellulosic ethanol. ARS scientists have genetically modified a strain of lactic acid bacteria, that produces increased levels of ethanol from cellulosic biomass. The research findings demonstrate that metabolic engineering has the potential to create new biocatalysts to convert biomass to biofuels.
Johanns plans to provide additional information about the proposal to provide $1.6 billion in new funding for renewable energy within the next few weeks when he unveils the Administration's full package of 2007 farm bill proposals.


----------



## JeffreyD

J.T.M. said:


> Maybe my fellow rightwing friends will not mind so much being taxed to fund the USDA if they realized how much BIG BIZ they are subsidizing thru. the USDA
> :ashamed:
> 
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda...01/0012.xml&printable=true&contentidonly=true
> Following are examples of USDA's projects underway and accomplishments to date:
> 
> USDA issued a formal Request For Information to initiate discussion with private sector partners willing to work with us to establish a bio-fuels pumping station in Washington DC, which would serve the general public and more than 800 flex fuel vehicles in the federal fleet. http://www1.fbo.gov/spg/
> In 2006, USDA launched BioPreferred, a procurement program that serves to increase the procurement and use of biobased products by Federal agencies. USDA has developed an easy access online Designated Biobased Product Catalog www.usda.gov/biopreferred as a resource of identifying biobased products.
> USDA spent nearly $1.7 billion on energy-related programs between 2001 and 2005. In 2006 alone, USDA made available more than $270 million on these programs in areas such as commercialization, research, infrastructure development, and technical support. Currently, there are 110 operational ethanol plants in 19 states with another 73 under construction and new proposals at an astounding rate.
> In 2005, Secretary Johanns appointed a USDA Energy Council for the purpose of coordinating and examining departmental programs and authorities, ensuring they fit into a comprehensive energy strategy.
> In 2000, USDA established the Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI), an interagency working group with the Department of Energy, to coordinate and accelerate all Federal biobased products and bioenergy research and development.
> Last October, President Bush offered the keynote address at the Advanced Renewable Energy Conference, hosted by USDA and the Department of Energy. The joint conference brought together the brightest minds in government and industry, as well as key stakeholders from the financial, agricultural and energy sectors, to address the challenges and opportunities to advance renewable energy.
> USDA's Agriculture Research Service (ARS) scientists have developed improved fermentation organisms and are making other significant steps toward achieving the technology needed for commercial production of cellulosic ethanol. ARS scientists have genetically modified a strain of lactic acid bacteria, that produces increased levels of ethanol from cellulosic biomass. The research findings demonstrate that metabolic engineering has the potential to create new biocatalysts to convert biomass to biofuels.
> Johanns plans to provide additional information about the proposal to provide $1.6 billion in new funding for renewable energy within the next few weeks when he unveils the Administration's full package of 2007 farm bill proposals.


I'm a conservative and I don't like any of that, have to question it's Constitutionality! But, then again, I think most of the government should be done away with as un-Constitutional. Ymmv.


----------



## AmericanStand

arabian knight said:


> Most all of these give away entitlement programs should be cut WAY back to let ONLY those truly in need get into them Period.



I think you miss the point of most of the programs. The idea behind most of them is to give a bit of comfort to those that work for low wages. So that employers don't have to pay the full cost of their employees.


----------



## Patchouli

HDRider said:


> IP,
> Please.... Creativity, remember?


Theft? Because I am not coming up with a lot of other options for a young starving child these days.


----------



## Patchouli

Well I made it all the way to page 13 and what a read it was even with a few pages almost completely blank because of a few people on ignore. :stars:

I am surprised no one came up with the very simple solution of bringing back the workhouses and poor farms? Poor parents will be forced to do all the things you suggest like farm and garden and learn to cook frugal meals in the kitchens. No sitting in front of the TV or buying beer instead of food! The attrition rate was always fairly high so no worries about perpetuating the problems across multiple generations. The kids who do survive will have hard work and survival on little beaten into their minds and bodies. Men and women had seperate dorms of course to prevent any new little mouths from entering the world. There was very little cost to the taxpayer or through charitable donations since they worked to produce their own food and created a system to support the farms.


----------



## JeffreyD

AmericanStand said:


> I think you miss the point of most of the programs. The idea behind most of them is to give a bit of comfort to those that work for low wages. So that employers don't have to pay the full cost of their employees.


I don't believe that is the reason for entitlement programs. That's a myth perpetuated by the left and their union shills. They were originally put in place to help those, who couldn't help themselves. But it has, unfortunately, morphed into a huge monstrosity that will be almost impossible to fix. These programs are also un-Constitutional, though some will argue that point, but the founders writings are clear. Has anyone looked to see how the poverty levels have changed over the last decade or so? These working poor all seem to have a lot of things I don't equate with being poor.


----------



## watcher

I'm a late comer and I'm not going to read through 11 pages of post to catch up but. . .

Here's my thoughts.

1) If you want to feed other people's kids go right ahead but do not FORCE me to feed them if I do not want to. 

2) The federal government does not have the constitutional power to take money out your pocket and put in mine just because it thinks I need it worse than you do.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh well. You have nothing to do with the amount I donate, do you? You don't pay taxes on it, I do.
> 
> Sigh. I assume you feel your tax dollars would be better spent elsewhere?
> 
> Why is this such a huge deal for you? It's what I find important and worthwhile but since you obviously don't, why are you so hung up on it?
> 
> ETA: At the end of the day, I am at peace because my intentions are good and my heart is pure.


I have said 100 times in this thread that feeding kids is good. You have ignored it 101 times.

My point is, was, and will always be, that we need to attack the reasons for the hunger. Why should we feel good when we fill a belly with charity when we can fill a belly, a heart and a soul with self reliance?

We may be succeeding in filling the belly, but we are failing miserably at building self reliance. We seem to take greater satisfaction building dependencies, maybe because it is easier.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Patchouli said:


> Theft? Because I am not coming up with a lot of other options for a young starving child these days.


or begging. Neither of which, at least in my humble opinion, is a great option for a kid. 

I'm sure there are some that will disagree with that tho.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> I'm a late comer and I'm not going to read through 11 pages of post to catch up but. . .
> 
> Here's my thoughts.
> 
> 1) If you want to feed other people's kids go right ahead but do not FORCE me to feed them if I do not want to.
> 
> 2) The federal government does not have the constitutional power to take money out your pocket and put in mine just because it thinks I need it worse than you do.


I'm not going to force you to do anything. Ever. I promise.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Patchouli said:


> Well I made it all the way to page 13 and what a read it was even with a few pages almost completely blank because of a few people on ignore. :stars:
> 
> I am surprised no one came up with the very simple solution of bringing back the workhouses and poor farms? Poor parents will be forced to do all the things you suggest like farm and garden and learn to cook frugal meals in the kitchens. No sitting in front of the TV or buying beer instead of food! The attrition rate was always fairly high so no worries about perpetuating the problems across multiple generations. The kids who do survive will have hard work and survival on little beaten into their minds and bodies. Men and women had seperate dorms of course to prevent any new little mouths from entering the world. There was very little cost to the taxpayer or through charitable donations since they worked to produce their own food and created a system to support the farms.


We could expand upon this and move both the mentally ill and mentally challenged onto the same farm with the poor and irresponsible people. Three birds with one stone! Plus, they can do all the funeral work as well. The kids may still be hungry, but the tax money saved! To some it would be a wet dream. :facepalm:

Hang on! It just occurred to me that we could put the disabled on the farm- there are some right here on this forum- they could show all the of the irresponsible slackers how it's _supposed_ to be done!- after all tax dollars help support them so they should be able to work for what they get. Four birds with one stone!

OMG! Old people too!

Big Sigh.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> I have said 100 times in this thread that feeding kids is good. You have ignored it 101 times.
> 
> My point is, was, and will always be, that we need to attack the reasons for the hunger. Why should we feel good when we fill a belly with charity when we can fill a belly, a heart and a soul with self reliance?
> 
> We may be succeed in filling the belly, but we are failings miserably at building self reliance. We seem to take greater satisfaction building dependencies, maybe because it is easier.


Yes, you have indicated that feeding kids is good, lot of times, it's the "but" you add to the statement that I don't understand, and never will. You have stated that none of your real world fixes for the "root cause" will work if free food is still being handed out. No food equals hungry kids that are being punished for their parent's irresponsibility. 

So we're back to- feeding kids is good BUT...


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, you have indicated that feeding kids is good, lot of times, it's the "but" you add to the statement that I don't understand, and never will. You have stated that none of your real world fixes for the "root cause" will work if free food is still being handed out. No food equals hungry kids that are being punished for their parent's irresponsibility.
> 
> So we're back to- feeding kids is good BUT...


OK - Why do we focus on the symptom (charity) and seeming to ignore the cause (self reliance)?

Behind my buts have been to call to improve one's ability to provide for one's self. I have not called for an either/or, but a both, Charity + Self Reliance, admitting that developing self reliance is an order of magnitude more difficult than the instant gratification of charity.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> OK - Why do we focus on the symptom (charity) and seeming to ignore the cause (self reliance)?
> 
> Behind my buts have been to call to improve one's ability to provide for one's self. I have not called for an either/or, but a both, Charity + Self Reliance, admitting that developing self reliance is an order of magnitude more difficult than the instant gratification of charity.



I don't focus on charity rather than self reliance, I focus on kids, specifically hungry kids. 

We've danced this so often I can anticipate your next move... don't dip me.


----------



## plowjockey

watcher said:


> I'm a late comer and I'm not going to read through 11 pages of post to catch up but. . .
> 
> Here's my thoughts.
> 
> 1) If you want to feed other people's kids go right ahead but do not FORCE me to feed them if I do not want to.
> 
> *2) The federal government does not have the constitutional power to take money out your pocket and put in mine just because it thinks I need it worse than you do*.


They sure do have the right.



> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/article-1-section-8.html


----------



## Riverdale

Dutchie said:


> I agree that some people mis-spend their money. But do you want to tell me where people who live on the thrird floor in the city can garden to feed their family? Not everybody lives in the country.


There are numerous blog of peopple in highly urban areas successfully providing a lot of fresh veggies, some even year round, On window sills, porches and roofs.

Adapt or be stuck in the "poor me, my great-great-great-grandparent got screwed over in (insert country here)"

If you are not part of the solution, you *are* the problem.


----------



## plowjockey

HDRider said:


> I have said 100 times in this thread that feeding kids is good. You have ignored it 101 times.
> 
> My point is, was, and will always be, that we need to attack the reasons for the hunger. Why should we feel good when we fill a belly with charity when we can fill a belly, a heart and a soul with self reliance?
> 
> We may be succeeding in filling the belly, but we are failing miserably at building self reliance. We seem to take greater satisfaction building dependencies, maybe because it is easier.


It's now much bigger than that, now.

Charity is now huge industry, plus a source of billion$ for Corporations.

The "feed the Kids" groups are getting huge tax deductible donations and their workers and directors and executives have a nice source of income. Corporations can donate surplus inventory for tax writeoffs.

Corporations and big Ag, fight tooth and nail, to control the farm bill, making sure their commodities (and junk food products) make it to the school lunch (and breakfast) rooms and the EBT shopping cart.

There is a lot of money in being poor.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't focus on charity rather than self reliance, I focus on kids, specifically hungry kids.
> 
> We've danced this so often I can anticipate your next move... don't dip me.


I have to dip you if we dance.


----------



## Riverdale

Dutchie said:


> I agree that some people mis-spend their money. But do you want to tell me where people who live on the thrird floor in the city can garden to feed their family? Not everybody lives in the country.





Dutchie said:


> Sure. Moving costs money. And being in a less urban environment takes them away for access to stores etc.


HMMMM, accoording to the current First Lady, most urban areas are "food deserts" anyway.......


----------



## Riverdale

Patchouli said:


> Well I made it all the way to page 13 and what a read it was even with a few pages almost completely blank because of a few people on ignore. :stars:
> 
> I am surprised no one came up with the very simple solution of bringing back the workhouses and poor farms? Poor parents will be forced to do all the things you suggest like farm and garden and learn to cook frugal meals in the kitchens. No sitting in front of the TV or buying beer instead of food! The attrition rate was always fairly high so no worries about perpetuating the problems across multiple generations. The kids who do survive will have hard work and survival on little beaten into their minds and bodies. Men and women had seperate dorms of course to prevent any new little mouths from entering the world. There was very little cost to the taxpayer or through charitable donations since they worked to produce their own food and created a system to support the farms.


The ACLU and 9th would shoot it down.


----------



## AmericanStand

Ok how about a little reality from someone who has worked thousands of hours in a food pantry ?
Out of thousands of customers the number of healthy capable men that come in twice in a row or more could be counted on one hand. 
Single Men that can provide for themselves will do almost anything to avoid the humileation of charity. 
More will come in once after losing a job. But that's still very rare. Perhaps I've met two hundred total. 
More common is the man in the same situation that's attached to a woman. 

They tend to sit in the car and let her do the shopping. 
Again they are usually to humileated to participate , she is too but when there are kids to feed she turns into a bear and does what has to be done to feed her kids. 
Unfortunately this group contains a tiny few where the child is a adult capable man. Less than 1 percent. 
Most of the customers were women with kids though. Often grand kids. At least a third of this group make a few trips then get their life in order, at least for a while. About a quarter of mom group are trying to better them selves in school or something. Another significant portion of the mom group are disabled. 
This would be the place where you would find the stereotypical welfare mom. I'd like to say I'd met a few BUT every time I'd get to know them I'd find out either they were in one of the two preceding groups or that they had been and were planning on trying again. 
About 25% of the people that show up at a pantry are perfectly healthy working poor. These are the ones that feed their kids cereal for breakfast , and cheese sandwichs for lunch and tater soup for dinner. They are frugal. What they are hoping for are the little bits that would make things nicer. Perhaps a ham that would make it a ham and cheese sandwich and give some flavor to the tater soup, maybe strawberries for the cereal. 
Most of the rest that would show up for the pantry were disabled often it was hard to tell by looking at them. 
Now there were always a few that you wonder about, the methhead looking for sweets or sellables. But she's got a kid. The young teen that looks single, what's her story ?
But far far more than 99% are people that most would help if they came to their door. 
So what program are you going to set up that would be better ?


----------



## J.T.M.

I suppose to the pony boy they are rich ,I mean after all, they have an icebox and a cement road for their 16 mile walk to GED class - you know , for pulling themselfs up by their bootstrapes .
Cortney is a 12 year old going on 25 . This is real life .This isn't growing tomatoes on the window sill,or a Bruce Willis movie , this is real ghetto living .My hope is that none of you never find yourself there in life ... or if you were , that you never forget what it was like . I know I can't .
If you can watch the first 2 mins. and not get a tug at your heart strings then you my friend ..... well ya 


[YOUTUBE]vgHDKKC_-ZE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## arabian knight

plowjockey said:


> Quote:
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and* general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


No they do NOT.
Not in the way YOU think it is. Welfare does not mean what you on the left THINK it means or want it to mean.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean?
Posted on May 9, 2011 4



> The Myth
> The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
> *The Truth
> The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.*
> This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.


http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/05/09/what-does-the-general-welfare-clause-really-mean/


----------



## Wanda

Irish Pixie said:


> We could expand upon this and move both the mentally ill and mentally challenged onto the same farm with the poor and irresponsible people. Three birds with one stone! Plus, they can do all the funeral work as well. The kids may still be hungry, but the tax money saved! To some it would be a wet dream. :facepalm:
> 
> Hang on! It just occurred to me that we could put the disabled on the farm- there are some right here on this forum- they could show all the of the irresponsible slackers how it's _supposed_ to be done!- after all tax dollars help support them so they should be able to work for what they get. Four birds with one stone!
> 
> OMG! Old people too!
> 
> Big Sigh.



This will fit in well with my ''reverse Social Security'' plan.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> I have to dip you if we dance.


No means no, buddy.


----------



## kasilofhome

Rural.....stores are to far..... children starve
Cities....stores are burnt by paid rioters, or the cost is too much, or they CAN'T be taught to cook within a budget, children starve

Mean while most children are attached to spend cell phones.

Non profits proliferate thru our the land... Hilary has one to feed children... 93 percent of which goes any where ... but to the children non profits are now money makers for the organizers and friends and family of them...

Feeding kids and folks in need is important enough to make sure the salt levels are acceptable to a new york liberal governor that he barred handing out food...


Get government out stop these non profit from getting government grants.... and let communities with private persons do the job.... it will get done. 

Children are as helpless as we want to to be....note children not toddlers. Bread is not a hard item to find..put something between it and eat.

Locally we are working at kids growing food to sell at their own farmers market....to fund their own activities during the year, excess to be canned, frozen, or donated to the elderly and in need locally. The canned stuff will be done under the teaching of volunteers using current food safety standards to provide food off season for the youth group meetings.

Also locally..our major farmers market operates on the grounds of our foodbank weekly. Farmers are not charged fees to be their as their tax dollars are already the major support for the funding of the site. Cooking classes for what to do with the raw product are given 

Fyi... removing the fee to the vendors created more vendors. Also non food bank user got to see the food bank in action and more local in put improved the food bank.

Feed those in need while aiding them in being a part of the solution.
Farmers donate extra starts to the food banks gardens.. persons coming to the food bank for food are encouraged to help in the food banks green house and gardens... even developed plots for them. 

It is working third year now. They even offer starter plants with food baskets.

The fact is do you want to end the need for food banks or grow a demand for a wasteful nonprofit food distribution center.

Teach responsibility.


----------



## Irish Pixie

J.T.M. said:


> I suppose to the pony boy they are rich ,I mean after all, they have an icebox and a cement road for their 16 mile walk to GED class - you know , for pulling themselfs up by their bootstrapes .
> Cortney is a 12 year old going on 25 . This is real life .This isn't growing tomatoes on the window sill,or a Bruce Willis movie , this is real ghetto living .My hope is that none of you never find yourself there in life ... or if you were , that you never forget what it was like . I know I can't .
> If you can watch the first 2 mins. and not get a tug at your heart strings then you my friend ..... well ya


Thank you for posting that video even though it made me cry. That is exactly why I do what I do. 

I wonder if she ever got her boots with fur on the top? Dang, the only two things the kid wanted was a home and a pair of boots...


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Rural.....stores are to far..... children starve
> Cities....stores are burnt by paid rioters, or the cost is too much, or they CAN'T be taught to cook within a budget, children starve
> 
> Mean while most children are attached to spend cell phones.
> 
> Non profits proliferate thru our the land... Hilary has one to feed children... 93 percent of which goes any where ... but to the children non profits are now money makers for the organizers and friends and family of them...
> 
> Feeding kids and folks in need is important enough to make sure the salt levels are acceptable to a new york liberal governor that he barred handing out food...
> 
> 
> Get government out stop these non profit from getting government grants.... and let communities with private persons do the job.... it will get done.
> 
> Children are as helpless as we want to to be....note children not toddlers. Bread is not a hard item to find..put something between it and eat.
> 
> Locally we are working at kids growing food to sell at their own farmers market....to fund their own activities during the year, excess to be canned, frozen, or donated to the elderly and in need locally. The canned stuff will be done under the teaching of volunteers using current food safety standards to provide food off season for the youth group meetings.
> 
> Also locally..our major farmers market operates on the grounds of our foodbank weekly. Farmers are not charged fees to be their as their tax dollars are already the major support for the funding of the site. Cooking classes for what to do with the raw product are given
> 
> Fyi... removing the fee to the vendors created more vendors. Also non food bank user got to see the food bank in action and more local in put improved the food bank.
> 
> Feed those in need while aiding them in being a part of the solution.
> Farmers donate extra starts to the food banks gardens.. persons coming to the food bank for food are encouraged to help in the food banks green house and gardens... even developed plots for them.
> 
> It is working third year now. They even offer starter plants with food baskets.
> 
> The fact is do you want to end the need for food banks or grow a demand for a wasteful nonprofit food distribution center.
> 
> Teach responsibility.


Yet there is still a need for that food bank. Hungrry children should be fed.


----------



## J.T.M.

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for posting that video even though it made me cry. That is exactly why I do what I do.
> 
> *I wonder if she ever got her boots with fur on the top?* Dang, the only two things the kid wanted was a home and a pair of boots...



IKR ... that kicked my butt . Im going to look for an update after I get in from feeding the ewes


----------



## kasilofhome

I am creating a farm because my husband is disabled.. and it work .....because I work at it. Spent less than 100 dollars at a store in May. Coffee took up 30 percent of the bill...i am getting a head and working is not a crime. 

It can be done. My mother spent time in an orphanage with gardener and lobster traps the girls tended to. It worked to.


----------



## arabian knight

Ya a 6 year old video in the worse economic disaster to come around in many years and for the last 7 the president has done Nothing~! 
Oh he has done something, that is to make it even Worse. Put the blame where it belongs on the government for making thing worse then it has to be these last years, the government WANTS to make people rely on them that is their agenda. Tell it like it really is.~!


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> I am creating a farm because my husband is disabled.. and it work .....because I work at it. Spent less than 100 dollars at a store in May. Coffee took up 30 percent of the bill...i am getting a head and working is not a crime.
> 
> It can be done. My mother spent time in an orphanage with gardener and lobster traps the girls tended to. It worked to.


That's great. I don't think that anyone is saying it can't be done, it's not _everyone_ can do it.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> I am creating a farm because my husband is disabled.. and it work .....because I work at it. Spent less than 100 dollars at a store in May. Coffee took up 30 percent of the bill...i am getting a head and working is not a crime.
> 
> It can be done. My mother spent time in an orphanage with gardener and lobster traps the girls tended to. It worked to.


Yet you and your family have needed help from others including the goverment. A helping had from goverment or charity is not a crime.

Hungry children should be fed.


----------



## no really

I know inner cities are not known for things like gardens, but with all the abandoned property wouldn't it be good to allocate areas for community gardens? 

One of the big items in spring in the food banks are seed and seedlings. It started small with local nursery donating a few flats of vegetables. My Mom was telling me that she saw more excitement and even some tears when given the vegetable starts. 

I know not everybody can do it but it is an avenue to help people feel more in control of their lives.


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> I know inner cities are not known for things like gardens, but with all the abandoned property wouldn't it be good to allocate areas for community gardens?
> 
> One of the big items in spring in the food banks are seed and seedlings. It started small with local nursery donating a few flats of vegetables. My Mom was telling me that she saw more excitement and even some tears when given the vegetable starts.
> 
> I know not everybody can do it but it is an avenue to help people feel more in control of their lives.


In NY SNAP benefits can be used to buy seed and vegetable plants. I imagine they can be used in other states as well.


----------



## wr

no really said:


> I know inner cities are not known for things like gardens, but with all the abandoned property wouldn't it be good to allocate areas for community gardens?
> 
> One of the big items in spring in the food banks are seed and seedlings. It started small with local nursery donating a few flats of vegetables. My Mom was telling me that she saw more excitement and even some tears when given the vegetable starts.
> 
> I know not everybody can do it but it is an avenue to help people feel more in control of their lives.


I've seen some do really well utilizing abandoned property and in other cases, the owners of the property feared liability and had the gardens torn up. I do know of a couple schools that have given consent for some raised bed gardening. 

I've also heard of vandals destroying all that hard work too.


----------



## no really

Yep, the next objective would be space and education. Using SNAP for seed is kinda hard for people that are so close to the edge, they will view seed or food for their kids, they will pick food first.


----------



## no really

wr said:


> I've seen some do really well utilizing abandoned property and in other cases, the owners of the property feared liability and had the gardens torn up. I do know of a couple schools that have given consent for some raised bed gardening.
> 
> I've also heard of vandals destroying all that hard work too.


Of course there are problems but they should be addressed. These people need to feel some control over their own welfare. 

Liability should be waived and the people wanting to garden informed of it. Vandalism is a criminal act and should be taken care of appropriately. IMHO

There are numerous reasons to not do this, but the biggest reason to do it is empowerment and self worth.


----------



## plowjockey

arabian knight said:


> No they do NOT.
> Not in the way YOU think it is. Welfare does not mean what you on the left THINK it means or want it to mean.
> What does the General Welfare Clause really mean?
> Posted on May 9, 2011 4
> 
> 
> 
> http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/05/09/what-does-the-general-welfare-clause-really-mean/


LOL I didn't mean "welfare" in the direct term and your link only states opinions and interpretation on how the Constitution works, apparently with little understanding.

"General welfare" could mean just about anything that helps citizens, including Social Security, interstate highways, or measles research.

It states nothing about prohibiting care to the poor.


----------



## Dutchie

HDRider said:


> My point is, was, and will always be, that we need to attack the reasons for the hunger. Why should we feel good when we fill a belly with charity when we can fill a belly, a heart and a soul with self reliance?
> 
> .


Pray tell how a small child is going to feed him/herself? Get a job?


----------



## kasilofhome

plowjockey said:


> LOL I didn't mean "welfare" in the direct term and your link only states opinions and interpretation on how the Constitution works, apparently with little understanding.
> 
> "General welfare" could mean just about anything that helps citizens, including Social Security, interstate highways, or measles research.
> 
> It states nothing about prohibiting care to the poor.


No historically... your wrong if you to the time to study the background of our founding documents you would learn the intent of that was to promote self Reliance and to prevent obstructions to independent prosperity.


----------



## wr

no really said:


> Of course there are problems but they should be addressed. These people need to feel some control over their own welfare.
> 
> Liability should be waived and the people wanting to garden informed of it. Vandalism is a criminal act and should be taken care of appropriately. IMHO
> 
> There are numerous reasons to not do this, but the biggest reason to do it is empowerment and self worth.


I'm not as negative about it as you may think and when I lived in Calgary, I noticed that a couple of schools had some dandy raised bed and container gardens, which I later discovered was an interesting joint effort between the schools, the horticultural society and a senior's facility. Once school was out for the summer, the kids were not obligated to garden but it was surprising how many kids and their parents turned out to help.


----------



## painterswife

wr said:


> I'm not as negative about it as you may think and when I lived in Calgary, I noticed that a couple of schools had some dandy raised bed and container gardens, which I later discovered was an interesting joint effort between the schools, the horticultural society and a senior's facility. Once school was out for the summer, the kids were not obligated to garden but it was surprising how many kids and their parents turned out to help.


Many of the schools here now have removed flowers and shrubs from planters and plant vegetables. It is a great start in the process. It however is only part of the solution.


----------



## TripleD

wr said:


> I'm not as negative about it as you may think and when I lived in Calgary, I noticed that a couple of schools had some dandy raised bed and container gardens, which I later discovered was an interesting joint effort between the schools, the horticultural society and a senior's facility. Once school was out for the summer, the kids were not obligated to garden but it was surprising how many kids and their parents turned out to help.


I'm pretty negative about it. I am a 3rd generation landlord. In the last 30 years we have encouraged tenants to plant a garden in their back yard. Most of the houses have at least an acre lot. I've only seen 3 plant one. None of the 3 planted one again. All know they aren't going to starve....


----------



## no really

wr said:


> I'm not as negative about it as you may think and when I lived in Calgary, I noticed that a couple of schools had some dandy raised bed and container gardens, which I later discovered was an interesting joint effort between the schools, the horticultural society and a senior's facility. Once school was out for the summer, the kids were not obligated to garden but it was surprising how many kids and their parents turned out to help.


I totally believe there should be many avenues investigated, some maybe of use others not. Also feel like there is not a simple one action answer either.

A couple of friends were talking about how being on SNAP and using food banks made them feel. OnE thing they both said they were grateful at first. But it went from that to grief, helplessness, and anger. At themselves mainly.


----------



## Patchouli

Irish Pixie said:


> We could expand upon this and move both the mentally ill and mentally challenged onto the same farm with the poor and irresponsible people. Three birds with one stone! Plus, they can do all the funeral work as well. The kids may still be hungry, but the tax money saved! To some it would be a wet dream. :facepalm:
> 
> Hang on! It just occurred to me that we could put the disabled on the farm- there are some right here on this forum- they could show all the of the irresponsible slackers how it's _supposed_ to be done!- after all tax dollars help support them so they should be able to work for what they get. Four birds with one stone!
> 
> OMG! Old people too!
> 
> Big Sigh.


I think we may be onto something here. I could see a ton of problems solved. We could replace the soon to be broke Social Security system with workhouses too. No worries anymore about Granny eating cat food she will be well taken care of and given meaningful work and companionship to finish out her days. I think the elderly did pretty well in workhouses didn't they?


----------



## Patchouli

arabian knight said:


> No they do NOT.
> Not in the way YOU think it is. Welfare does not mean what you on the left THINK it means or want it to mean.
> What does the General Welfare Clause really mean?
> Posted on May 9, 2011 4
> 
> 
> 
> http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/05/09/what-does-the-general-welfare-clause-really-mean/


So I presume you are refusing your SS checks every month?


----------



## Patchouli

no really said:


> I know inner cities are not known for things like gardens, but with all the abandoned property wouldn't it be good to allocate areas for community gardens?
> 
> One of the big items in spring in the food banks are seed and seedlings. It started small with local nursery donating a few flats of vegetables. My Mom was telling me that she saw more excitement and even some tears when given the vegetable starts.
> 
> I know not everybody can do it but it is an avenue to help people feel more in control of their lives.


I know people who are working to get things like this going. A lot of times people will donate a lot or go rent free in exchange for getting it cleaned up and something nice done with it. Sadly in some places the city balks or the land owner does. Plus it takes some money to haul off the junk and generally the top layer of soil that can have chemicals and stuff in it. Then hauling in good top soil and compost. Once it is up and running though they are fairly low cost to maintain. 

There are a ton of ways we can help end food insecurity in America. If people don't like giving a food hand-out look into helping with a community garden.


----------



## Riverdale

painterswife said:


> Many of the schools here now have removed flowers and shrubs from planters and plant vegetables. It is a great start in the process. It however is only part of the solution.


Many HOA's will not allow a garden. maybe we should pass a law to *compell* HOAs to plant community gardens


How you feel about that?


----------



## Nevada

Riverdale said:


> Many HOA's will not allow a garden. maybe we should pass a law to *compell* HOAs to plant community gardens
> 
> 
> How you feel about that?


HOAs shouldn't be compelled to plant gardens, but it might be a good idea to compel them to allow gardens.


----------



## Patchouli

I will throw out my personal experience as a young mother with little kids in poverty. When we got out of the military my husband's first civilian job seemed wonderful and we moved there from another state. 5 months later it went bust and we were jobless and homeless. We stayed with family a few months and then he got another job, in another state. It paid very little to start but we desperately wanted to be on our own 2 feet again and we went. 

The first 2 years it was 100% hand to mouth. We rented a crazy house in a bayou and had enough room for a garden so we tried to grow food. It was a bust. We didn't know what we were doing, neither of us was from the deep south so the damp, the heat and the bugs pretty much took it out. We didn't try the second year because it was too much work and much needed money down the hole with little return.

Our landlady was on some sort of government food program and she gave us the stuff she didn't like. Cereal, weird cheese, peanut butter. The kids scarfed it all down. I killed myself trying to make everything from scratch, learning to cook, buying as frugally as I could. This was pre-internet so the learning was via the library. There were still a lot of weeks that the days before our next paycheck I was looking at grits for breakfast, lunch and supper. 

Unless you have been there it is impossible to imagine how that grinds you down as a parent. Seeing your kids hungry. Being treated as worthless because you can't get yourself together. Sometimes the hole is deep and it takes awhile to get back on top. One trip to the emergency room and you are slapped right back to the bottom. By the end of those 2 years I was deeply depressed. Fortunately for us a promotion, a good pay raise and a new state finally pulled us out of the hole and onto our feet. 

I don't know how people make it as long as they do trapped in the cycle of poverty. It wears you out and eats you alive. I can understand the parents who are so depressed they can't function. I can understand how you can try as hard as you can and still come up short some days. I admire the ones who keep going, keep trying, look for any resource they can to keep body and soul together. I am happy to chip in wherever I can to help them out because I have been there.


----------



## HDRider

Dutchie said:


> Pray tell how a small child is going to feed him/herself? Get a job?


Again, with the leap too far.


----------



## Nevada

Patchouli said:


> I will throw out my personal experience as a young mother with little kids in poverty.


Conservatives don't want to understand this. It's easier to believe that people who need help got that was through their own doing (lazy, substance abuse, or are committing welfare fraud). Often conservatives refer to the "welfare queen" that Ronald Reagan spoke of in 1976.

_"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

Believing that (or at least pretending to believe it) relieves any conflicts with their social conscience when suggesting that the government cut or eliminate welfare benefits. After all, if they're already driving luxury cars and earning more than working Americans then why should they care?

But the realities are much closer to the conditions described in Patchouli's post. Thank you for sharing. That had to take courage to admit those things.


----------



## Dutchie

HDRider said:


> Again, with the leap too far.


No. You are missing the connection. It isn't the child's fault that their parents can't provide.


----------



## HDRider

Dutchie said:


> No. You are missing the connection. It isn't the child's fault that their parents can't provide.


I did not say it was.


----------



## painterswife

Nevada said:


> *Conservatives don't want to understand this. It's easier to believe that people who need help got that was through their own doing (lazy, substance abuse, or are committing welfare fraud). Often conservatives refer to the "welfare queen" that Ronald Reagan spoke of in 1976.*
> 
> _"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."_
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen
> 
> Believing that (or at least pretending to believe it) relieves any conflicts with their social conscience when suggesting that the government cut or eliminate welfare benefits. After all, if they're already driving luxury cars and earning more than working Americans then why should they care?
> 
> But the realities are much closer to the conditions described in Patchouli's post. Thank you for sharing. That had to take courage to admit those things.


Just to be fair. That is a bigoted statement. Some conservatives but not all, maybe not even most.


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> Just to be fair. That is a bigoted statement. Some conservatives but not all, maybe not even most.


OK, all of the conservatives who have weighed-in on the topic here.

Can you give me an example of a conservative post with another attitude about welfare recipients?


----------



## painterswife

Nevada said:


> OK, all of the conservatives who have weighed-in on the topic here.


Are you sure? Do you know for a fact who every conservative is?


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> Are you sure? Do you know for a fact who every conservative is?


OK, if there's a conservative reading this who feels differently, let him speak his mind now.


----------



## painterswife

Nevada said:


> OK, if there's a conservative reading this who feels differently, let him speak his mind now.


They don't need to. We should all strive to make less all encompassing statements just to prove a point.

I personally have had enough of both sides being making bigoted statements. We all sometimes make them when we get caught up in the discussion but we all need to work at not doing that. A member of another forum pointed that out to me and I personally and trying to take it to heart.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> OK, all of the conservatives who have weighed-in on the topic here.
> 
> Can you give me an example of a conservative post with another attitude about welfare recipients?





painterswife said:


> Are you sure? Do you know for a fact who every conservative is?



No, he really doesn't.ound:



Nevada said:


> OK, if there's a conservative reading this who feels differently, let him speak his mind now.



I hesitate to answer the question as it was posed, as I personally object to what is the now accepted definition of a "conservative".
If I were to describe myself, I would say I'm a Christian Libertarian, a minority to be sure, LOL.

But to refute Nevada's assumption, not everyone who is labeled as "conservative" rejects the idea that widows and orphans and those that God puts in our path that need real help, should be turned away.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> OK, all of the conservatives who have weighed-in on the topic here.
> 
> Can you give me an example of a conservative post with another attitude about welfare recipients?


Speaking in such generalities is never accurate. 

Regardless of a person's circumstances, they should be dealt with in a manner that is best for them. In no instance can you find where I implied a person should not get help as it is needed.


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> We should all strive to make less all encompassing statements just to prove a point.


That's a fair criticism. But let's see if anyone denies it.


----------



## Oxankle

I smell a ton of liberal arrogance and cynicism here.\\\

No true conservative advocates dropping the truly needy, but we are fed up with the generation-to-generation handouts to people unwilling to do what it takes to improve their lot. No one can sit in a housing project and expect miracles to make them better.

Pacthouli cites her own experience as if it were unique. Get real; thousands of us have come up that road and did it without handouts from neighbors or the government. The young person who thinks that they are entitled to six bedrooms, three baths and a fine auto the day they get out of high school is nuts. 

A close friend married a man from a supposed good family who turned out to be a drunk. She lived several years with him, two children, dodging creditors and feeding her children on whatever money she could salvage from his drunken binges. When the children were old enough to go to school she got a job as an aide, hid her earnings, paid for an education and teaching degree, dropped the drunk. For the first time since she was married she could feed herself and the children properly. Little by little she climbed the ladder until today she has more income in retirement than most people working. Not one penny of taxpayer's help. A good bit of her money winds up in the welfare pool.

My own experience, and that of my siblings, is not much different. Patchouli is not any particularly rare example. If any of you had lived through the great depression you'd have seen how real Americans worked and made-do without welfare. I caught only the tail end of that, but I saw how my parents worked--I went with them once when they picked cotton from the Rio Grande valley to the high plains of Texas. We lived in a tent and ate from cans, but between them my folks fed us all and came home with enough money to make the winter.

To refute the calumny Nevada puts forth, if you will check the stats, conservative Americans donate more to charity than do the liberals. Difference is that the Liberals want to donate Conservative's money thru government programs. 

What it comes down to is that people who earn their own money, particularly if they come up the hard way, are generally conservative and generous givers to charity. People who don't earn much, but live on what they make, are as conservative as the conservative who hit it rich.

The over educated elite, those who were pampered and came up with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths are most often the ones who advocate giving the tax money earned by others to the "poor". 

Let us draw yet another distinction: There are those who have little, and will never have much, but live within their means and work hard to improve their lot. These are not the "poor". They are rich in spirit and self respect, deserving of honor from all of us. 
The people we conservatives despise are those who have little but want what is not theirs to be given them "because they are poor". To hell with that, and if that makes me hard-hearted and callous, so be it.


----------



## J.T.M.

Nevada said:


> OK, all of the conservatives who have weighed-in on the topic here.
> 
> Can you give me an example of a conservative post with another attitude about welfare recipients?


post #
188
190
202
207
209
213
215
218
219
226
229
234
241
262
269 
:cowboy:


----------



## J.T.M.

Oxankle said:


> I smell a ton of liberal arrogance and cynicism here.\\\
> 
> No true conservative advocates dropping the truly needy, but we are fed up with the generation-to-generation handouts to people unwilling to do what it takes to improve their lot. No one can sit in a housing project and expect miracles to make them better.
> 
> Pacthouli cites her own experience as if it were unique. Get real; thousands of us have come up that road and did it without handouts from neighbors or the government. The young person who thinks that they are entitled to six bedrooms, three baths and a fine auto the day they get out of high school is nuts.
> 
> A close friend married a man from a supposed good family who turned out to be a drunk. She lived several years with him, two children, dodging creditors and feeding her children on whatever money she could salvage from his drunken binges. When the children were old enough to go to school she got a job as an aide, hid her earnings, paid for an education and teaching degree, dropped the drunk. For the first time since she was married she could feed herself and the children properly. Little by little she climbed the ladder until today she has more income in retirement than most people working. Not one penny of taxpayer's help. A good bit of her money winds up in the welfare pool.
> 
> My own experience, and that of my siblings, is not much different. Patchouli is not any particularly rare example. If any of you had lived through the great depression you'd have seen how real Americans worked and made-do without welfare. I caught only the tail end of that, but I saw how my parents worked--I went with them once when they picked cotton from the Rio Grande valley to the high plains of Texas. We lived in a tent and ate from cans, but between them my folks fed us all and came home with enough money to make the winter.
> 
> To refute the calumny Nevada puts forth, if you will check the stats, conservative Americans donate more to charity than do the liberals. Difference is that the Liberals want to donate Conservative's money thru government programs.
> 
> What it comes down to is that people who earn their own money, particularly if they come up the hard way, are generally conservative and generous givers to charity. People who don't earn much, but live on what they make, are as conservative as the conservative who hit it rich.
> 
> The over educated elite, those who were pampered and came up with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths are most often the ones who advocate giving the tax money earned by others to the "poor".
> 
> Let us draw yet another distinction: There are those who have little, and will never have much, but live within their means and work hard to improve their lot. These are not the "poor". They are rich in spirit and self respect, deserving of honor from all of us.
> The people we conservatives despise are those who have little but want what is not theirs to be given them "because they are poor". To hell with that, and if that makes me hard-hearted and callous, so be it.


Thats a pretty fair assessment ...


----------



## AmericanStand

Sometimes I wonder if a lot of those that are just plain mean call themselves conservative so they feel like they belong to a group. 
I am conservative. 
Old fashioned beyond belief. 
But I've lived both sides of Pacthouli's story. 
I belive her. The key to what she said was how grinding it is. I think many of those posting have the attitude I drug myself out of poverty why can't they. 
The answer is simple because the don't have it in them. Can't you see Michael Johnson say in the same about his jump shot ? It's easy why can't you do it? There must be something wrong with you because you don't! You are just a lazy worthless scumbag that doesn't try hard enough. 
Don't think others can do what you can just cause you can.


----------



## J.T.M.

AmericanStand said:


> *Sometimes I wonder if a lot of those that are just plain mean call themselves conservative so they feel like they belong to a group. *
> I am conservative.
> Old fashioned beyond belief.
> But I've lived both sides of Pacthouli's story.
> I belive her. The key to what she said was how grinding it is. I think many of those posting have the attitude I drug myself out of poverty why can't they.
> The answer is simple because the don't have it in them. Can't you see Michael Johnson say in the same about his jump shot ? It's easy why can't you do it? There must be something wrong with you because you don't! You are just a lazy worthless scumbag that doesn't try hard enough.
> Don't think others can do what you can just cause you can.


 Patchoulis story moved me as well ... I love to hear about people fighting the good fight and coming out on top . and to the pseudo conservatives I say .................... get a heart


----------



## Patchouli

AmericanStand said:


> Sometimes I wonder if a lot of those that are just plain mean call themselves conservative so they feel like they belong to a group.
> I am conservative.
> Old fashioned beyond belief.
> But I've lived both sides of Pacthouli's story.
> I belive her. The key to what she said was how grinding it is. I think many of those posting have the attitude I drug myself out of poverty why can't they.
> The answer is simple because the don't have it in them. Can't you see Michael Johnson say in the same about his jump shot ? It's easy why can't you do it? There must be something wrong with you because you don't! You are just a lazy worthless scumbag that doesn't try hard enough.
> Don't think others can do what you can just cause you can.


Good point. Not all of us have the same gifts or abilities and what one person can soldier through will crush another. Honestly what saved us was that my husband trained in the best career field in the AF at that time and he got his degree while we were in. Eventually it led to an excellent career.


----------



## where I want to

It seems to come down to a division of people who have fought through hard times, don't consider themselves exceptional, and think it was not all that hard as to be impossible to do better. They think that many more, if not everyone, could do it if they weren't given the idea they can't.

The others side of the division seems to be people who have fought through hard times, think themselves exceptional and don't expect anyone else to do it.

Also there seems quite a division in what is considered hard times in the first place. And an assumption by people of the second division that people of the first division have never really suffered as they have otherwise they couldn't possibly be so lacking in sympathy.

Of course, there is also an instinctive surprise by the first group that what they consider to be normal struggles of life seem to be considered devastatingly brutal by second group.

But the second has one serious advantage- they can always resort to calling the first group mean.


----------



## where I want to

J.T.M. said:


> Patchoulis story moved me as well ... I love to hear about people fighting the good fight and coming out on top . and to the pseudo conservatives I say .................... get a heart


Well, the Tin Man was sold a fake heart by a shabby fraud and it made him happy anyway.


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> It seems to come down to a division of people who have fought through hard times, don't consider themselves exceptional, and think it was not all that hard as to be impossible to do better. They think that many more, if not everyone, could do it if they weren't given the idea they can't.
> 
> 
> 
> The others side of the division seems to be people who have fought through hard times, think themselves exceptional and don't expect anyone else to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Also there seems quite a division in what is considered hard times in the first place. And an assumption by people of the second division that people of the first division have never really suffered as they have otherwise they couldn't possibly be so lacking .



You are ignoring at least three more groups , those that actually can't better themselves and those that have tried are still trying but haven't got there yet and a third group that could get better with some help to put them over a hump.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> You are ignoring at least three more groups , those that actually can't better themselves and those that have tried are still trying but haven't got there yet and a third group that could get better with some help to put them over a hump.


No- that is the reason for the word 'most' in the first paragraph. The willingness to interpret any objection as a complete rejection is one of the reasons these sort of discussions are so polarized. 
BTW the divisions mentioned are not of people are getting or think they need welfare, it is a division of people arguing in this thread.


----------



## AmericanStand

I must have missed the word "most".


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> .
> 
> BTW the divisions mentioned are not of people are getting or think they need welfare, it is a division of people arguing in this thread.



I think there is at least a third group here. Those that know that for some the fight from poverty will not tax them a lot ,that for others it will only be thru great effort and that some simply do not have the power to make it.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> I think there is at least a third group here. Those that know that for some the fight from poverty will not tax them a lot ,that for others it will only be thru great effort and that some simply do not have the power to make it.


Again, this is not what people do but what people post here they think. Of course there are people who are so incapable they either will or can not effectively change their lives.
But the one thing I learned is that the will to do so is not absent in the people others consider incapable. One in my own family was a paraplegic grandfather who put himself through commercial art school and actually made a superior living at it. But I have also interviewed people who had a very low IQ who were simply internally driven to work and support themselves. I'm sure that some who met them would not consider them successful but they lived independent lives, which I consider a success. I have also know a quadraplegic, who started his company from his bed and was what everyone could call successful.

I also know that there are people with health issues that cause simply existing to be too much of a drain to have energy for work. 
But those people are not the huge mass of people getting welfare. There are just too many who are told it is ok to depend on other's work and never really do more than a half hearted attempt and stop at the first obstacle. And never have to try again. And there are many catagories of these too. 
Anything that encourages this too much is not only an injury to the people paying but to the people too who will never have the pride of achieving.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> It seems to come down to a division of people who have fought through hard times, don't consider themselves exceptional, and think it was not all that hard as to be impossible to do better. They think that many more, if not everyone, could do it if they weren't given the idea they can't.
> 
> The others side of the division seems to be people who have fought through hard times, think themselves exceptional and don't expect anyone else to do it.
> 
> Also there seems quite a division in what is considered hard times in the first place. And an assumption by people of the second division that people of the first division have never really suffered as they have otherwise they couldn't possibly be so lacking in sympathy.
> 
> Of course, there is also an instinctive surprise by the first group that what they consider to be normal struggles of life seem to be considered devastatingly brutal by second group.
> 
> But the second has one serious advantage- they can always resort to calling the first group mean.


This is completely untrue and genuinely offensive. For someone who pitches such fits about people mucking up threads by misconstruing other people's positions you sure do it a lot yourself.


----------



## Dutchie

In the meanwhile, thousands of children are going to bed hungry again tonight ......


----------



## kasilofhome

And the poor will always be here....it's a quote from someone in the know.


----------



## Oxankle

It is amazing how people who are about to starve suddenly discover that they CAN somehow make a living. Of course if all they have to do is wander down to the local food bank and beg they will find that easier to do than take any kind of job. 

Somewhere in the big Book it says that there will always be the infirm, the sick, the old and the crippled who need help. I don't think it says anything about helping the lazy, nor does it forbid giving a pep talk to those who think they are unable or don't have to to earn a living.

Where I Want to says;
"the will to do so is not absent in the people others consider incapable. One in my own family was a paraplegic grandfather who put himself through commercial art school and actually made a superior living at it. But I have also interviewed people who had a very low IQ who were simply internally driven to work and support themselves."

And those people, Where I Want to, are the people who earn our respect-- highly intelligent or borderline handicapped, The person who uses whatever talent the creator gave him to make a living for himself deserves respect in any community. Those who sit on their behinds and complain do not.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> And the poor will always be here....it's a quote from someone in the know.


I actually agree with you on this.


----------



## HDRider

I wonder if our belief in others' abilities or inabilities to rise to meet life's challenges are simply a reflection of our belief in ourselves.

Oh, and so everyone will be happy, "Hungrry children should be fed".


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> I wonder if our belief in others' abilities or inabilities to rise to meet life's challenges are simply a reflection of our belief in ourselves.
> 
> Oh, and so everyone will be happy, "Hungrry children should be fed".


I knew you'd get it! :sing:


----------



## where I want to

Dutchie said:


> In the meanwhile, thousands of children are going to bed hungry again tonight ......


No there aren't.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> I knew you'd get it! :sing:


Now we are waiting for you.


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> Again, this is not what people do but what people post here they think..


I get what you are saying but I think you are wrong. That second group you mention thinks what they did was doable ,not exceptionable,BUT they can see how there are some that couldn't do it.
Why is it so hard to see that ?



where I want to said:


> I also know that there are people with health issues that cause simply existing to be too much of a drain to have energy for work.
> But those people are not the huge mass of people getting welfare. There are just too many who are told it is ok to depend on other's work and never really do more than a half hearted attempt and stop at the first obstacle.


How do you know this?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Dutchie said:


> In the meanwhile, thousands of children are going to bed hungry again tonight ......





where I want to said:


> No there aren't.


You can't possibly know that. There are hungry kids in this country and there could quite easily be thousands.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> I get what you are saying but I think you are wrong. That second group you mention thinks what they did was doable ,not exceptionable,BUT they can see how there are some that couldn't do it.
> Why is it so hard to see that ?
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this?


Again again I did say there were some. People responding prefer to keep repeating the incorrected allegations. 

Because there are various benefits to people, not paying any income taxes, but getting benefits of one kind or another of about 50% of the population. 
But it is incredibly hard to figure out who is getting what. It's as if one hand does want to know what the others are doing. The amounts are hidden not only by the incredible complex number of official programs but the huge number of grants. It's like money laundering, grants go to various nonprofits, and they in turn pass out that money in more grants and directly. The feds pay the state, the state pays out grants and direct subsidies, they forward money to counties who do the same grants and direct payments.. Then some goes back to the original sources. As far as I can tell, there are almost no accounting or verification. Except when some incident reveals a fraud. 

Some of my feeling comes from living in an area of lots of welfare recipients. I have quite a few experiences that I felt at first were just individual problems but since almost all were involving some sort of under the table dealing, I came to see it as systemic. In truth I only know a few people who are not getting something or I don't know for sure. And most of those are government employees.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> You can't possibly know that. There are hungry kids in this country and there could quite easily be thousands.


No, I can't any more than you know there are. But if the argument is conducted by pulling assertions out of thin air and just keep repeating them, I though I'd give it a try.

I do know that the only cases I I have ever heard of malnutrition have been pursued as child abuse. So that the idea of widespread deprivation is totally unlikely. What is really being discussed is something that no one has ever quantified or really even sampled for accuracy.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> No there aren't.


You are correct the number is actually 15.8 million children in America who are food insecure. 

http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunge.../child-food-insecurity-executive-summary.html


----------



## JeffreyD

Patchouli said:


> You are correct the number is actually 15.8 million children in America who are food insecure.
> 
> http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunge.../child-food-insecurity-executive-summary.html


What exactly is "food insecurity"?

I live in California. We have earthquakes and therefore we do not have a reliable source for food or water. Does that count? Do other areas that have severe natural disasters count?

I'm asking because the term, as used, seems to cover a very broad range of circumstances.


----------



## farmrbrown

kasilofhome said:


> And the poor will always be here....it's a quote from someone in the know.





Oxankle said:


> It is amazing how people who are about to starve suddenly discover that they CAN somehow make a living. Of course if all they have to do is wander down to the local food bank and beg they will find that easier to do than take any kind of job.
> 
> Somewhere in the big Book it says that there will always be the infirm, the sick, the old and the crippled who need help. I don't think it says anything about helping the lazy, nor does it forbid giving a pep talk to those who think they are unable or don't have to to earn a living.



Yes, I know the One who wrote that book too, lots of good advice in there.....



where I want to said:


> But those people are not the huge mass of people getting welfare. There are just too many who are told it is ok to depend on other's work and never really do more than a half hearted attempt and stop at the first obstacle. And never have to try again. And there are many catagories of these too.
> Anything that encourages this too much is not only an injury to the people paying but to the people too who will never have the pride of achieving.





AmericanStand said:


> How do you know this?





1st hand, eyewitness experience, that's how.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> What exactly is "food insecurity"?
> 
> I live in California. We have earthquakes and therefore we do not have a reliable source for food or water. Does that count? Do other areas that have severe natural disasters count?
> 
> I'm asking because the term, as used, seems to cover a very broad range of circumstances.


This is the first definition that comes up when you put "food insecurity definition" into Google.

food inÂ·seÂ·cuÂ·riÂ·ty
noun
the state of being without *reliable* access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food.

I bolded what I feel is the key word. I opened the refrigerator or cupboard and there was food. As a kid I knew I'd have three meals and as many snacks as I wanted. A food insecure kid is one that may have to often do without one or two meals or the snacks. It's basically the fear of not having food and being hungry.


----------



## AmericanStand

I think there is a huge gulf between " food insecurity" and "going to bed hungry" neither of which is the correct term for "not getting enough to eat". 
As pointed out before grandma was food insecure with a basement full of food , teenagers are a giant pit you can poor food into ten minutes before bedtime and will still go to bed hungry and you can stuff yourself full of nutrionless junk food and still not get enough to eat. 
We need better terms.


----------



## AmericanStand

farmrbrown said:


> 1st hand, eyewitness experience, that's how.



Are you answering for some one else ? Or claiming firsthand knowledge of what they purport to know ?
Are you where I want to in addition to farmer brown ?


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> I think there is a huge gulf between " food insecurity" and "going to bed hungry" neither of which is the correct term for "not getting enough to eat".
> As pointed out before grandma was food insecure with a basement full of food , teenagers are a giant pit you can poor food into ten minutes before bedtime and will still go to bed hungry and you can stuff yourself full of nutrionless junk food and still not get enough to eat.
> We need better terms.


I think it's easier to say "food insecure" than "a kid that doesn't know where his or her's next meal is coming from" but that's just me. 

Grandma wasn't food insecure when she had the shelves of food in the basement, that was when she was younger and had three kids to raise on her own. The food in the basement made her feel secure that she'd never be hungry again. It was a security thing for her.


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> Some of my feeling comes from living in an area of lots of welfare recipients. I have quite a few experiences that I felt at first were just individual problems but since almost all were involving some sort of under the table dealing, I came to see it as systemic. In truth I only know a few people who are not getting something or I don't know for sure. And most of those are government employees.



I get that good personnel observation. 
How much depth have you gone into ? Did you ever get to know these people ?
In my work at the food pantry I went through phases. 
For instance Honestly at first I though the vast majority of the freeloaders that came in there shouldn't get food they could work. 
Then I'd get to know them and find out they were Disabled and think well that's who it's for. 
Then I'd find out that they cut their own fire wood and think if they could do that they could work. 
Then I'd find out that half a cord took them all year working those few randum minutes a week when everything came together to allow them physically be able. 
Not much output but boy were they proud that they could do SOMETHING !

My point isn't that each is cutting wood it's that you have to look very close through layers and layers to find the truth. 

Yes I'm sure that some have manipulated the system 
But I think it's a small percent that doesn't warrant throwing the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> This is the first definition that comes up when you put "food insecurity definition" into Google.
> 
> food inÂ·seÂ·cuÂ·riÂ·ty
> noun
> the state of being without *reliable* access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food.
> 
> I bolded what I feel is the key word. I opened the refrigerator or cupboard and there was food. As a kid I knew I'd have three meals and as many snacks as I wanted. A food insecure kid is one that may have to often do without one or two meals *or the snacks*. It's basically the fear of not having food and being hungry.


That's some funny stuff. Thanks for pointing out that since I haven't had snacks in months and have to drive to the grocer, I am food insecure.


----------



## Tricky Grama

farmrbrown said:


> No, he really doesn't.ound:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hesitate to answer the question as it was posed, as I personally object to what is the now accepted definition of a "conservative".
> If I were to describe myself, I would say I'm a Christian Libertarian, a minority to be sure, LOL.
> 
> But to refute Nevada's assumption, not everyone who is labeled as "conservative" rejects the idea that widows and orphans and those that God puts in our path that need real help, should be turned away.


Obviously, more conservatives feel the helpless-widows, children are good examples-should be helped. Far more conservatives donate $$$, time, & blood than do liberals. And the "Ds" are richer than the "Rs", if you want to group those as conservatives & non-conservatives.
Prolly not here on HT, betcha the non-conserves here do a lot to help others, just b/c most are homesteading kind of folks.


----------



## Irish Pixie

po boy said:


> That's some funny stuff. Thanks for pointing out that since I haven't had snacks in months and have to drive to the grocer, I am food insecure.


You have missed the point- it isn't voluntary.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Oxankle said:


> I smell a ton of liberal arrogance and cynicism here.\\\
> 
> No true conservative advocates dropping the truly needy, but we are fed up with the generation-to-generation handouts to people unwilling to do what it takes to improve their lot. No one can sit in a housing project and expect miracles to make them better.
> 
> Pacthouli cites her own experience as if it were unique. Get real; thousands of us have come up that road and did it without handouts from neighbors or the government. The young person who thinks that they are entitled to six bedrooms, three baths and a fine auto the day they get out of high school is nuts.
> 
> A close friend married a man from a supposed good family who turned out to be a drunk. She lived several years with him, two children, dodging creditors and feeding her children on whatever money she could salvage from his drunken binges. When the children were old enough to go to school she got a job as an aide, hid her earnings, paid for an education and teaching degree, dropped the drunk. For the first time since she was married she could feed herself and the children properly. Little by little she climbed the ladder until today she has more income in retirement than most people working. Not one penny of taxpayer's help. A good bit of her money winds up in the welfare pool.
> 
> My own experience, and that of my siblings, is not much different. Patchouli is not any particularly rare example. If any of you had lived through the great depression you'd have seen how real Americans worked and made-do without welfare. I caught only the tail end of that, but I saw how my parents worked--I went with them once when they picked cotton from the Rio Grande valley to the high plains of Texas. We lived in a tent and ate from cans, but between them my folks fed us all and came home with enough money to make the winter.
> 
> To refute the calumny Nevada puts forth, if you will check the stats, conservative Americans donate more to charity than do the liberals. Difference is that the Liberals want to donate Conservative's money thru government programs.
> 
> What it comes down to is that people who earn their own money, particularly if they come up the hard way, are generally conservative and generous givers to charity. People who don't earn much, but live on what they make, are as conservative as the conservative who hit it rich.
> 
> The over educated elite, those who were pampered and came up with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths are most often the ones who advocate giving the tax money earned by others to the "poor".
> 
> Let us draw yet another distinction: There are those who have little, and will never have much, but live within their means and work hard to improve their lot. These are not the "poor". They are rich in spirit and self respect, deserving of honor from all of us.
> The people we conservatives despise are those who have little but want what is not theirs to be given them "because they are poor". To hell with that, and if that makes me hard-hearted and callous, so be it.


Post of a couple centuries award!


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> You have missed the point- it isn't voluntary.


Wrong, I did get the point and understand all you have posted.


----------



## Tricky Grama

JeffreyD said:


> What exactly is "food insecurity"?
> 
> I live in California. We have earthquakes and therefore we do not have a reliable source for food or water. Does that count? Do other areas that have severe natural disasters count?
> 
> I'm asking because the term, as used, seems to cover a very broad range of circumstances.


The left cannot truthfully come up w/starving children in this country. So, they came up w/'food insecure'. 

When my husband was in college, lived in the married student housing. I babysat & along w/our 2, had 9 kids. He worked PT in a gro. store. We had little or no $$.
Got paid for the babysitting every fri. But $2.25/day was not much. Fri lunch I waited til all kids were done & I ate what was left on their plates, in their soup bowls. Little did I know I was food insecure all those years!
Thinking back on my childhood, I was "food shy". There was no program for this. What a shame.

I've asked the last few days, who's ever heard this term. ALL said: "BWhaha"


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> I get that good personnel observation.
> How much depth have you gone into ? Did you ever get to know these people ?
> In my work at the food pantry I went through phases.
> For instance Honestly at first I though the vast majority of the freeloaders that came in there shouldn't get food they could work.
> Then I'd get to know them and find out they were Disabled and think well that's who it's for.
> Then I'd find out that they cut their own fire wood and think if they could do that they could work.
> Then I'd find out that half a cord took them all year working those few randum minutes a week when everything came together to allow them physically be able.
> Not much output but boy were they proud that they could do SOMETHING !
> 
> My point isn't that each is cutting wood it's that you have to look very close through layers and layers to find the truth.
> 
> Yes I'm sure that some have manipulated the system
> But I think it's a small percent that doesn't warrant throwing the baby out with the bath water.


Actually way more than most people because I had a job that requires evidence of statements. But it is not fraud that is the big problem.

There has been a steady loosening of requirements, even to the point of eliminating resource limits for many welfare benefits and using tax credits to pay out welfare, has lead to a point where more people take out from the government than pay in. It has become so common as to inescapable. It has become a way of life for ordinary Americans.

People posting keep using the term "deserving" both as advocates and opponents. But it is way past that now. It is no longer even a question any more. People have all come to think of themselves as deserving.


----------



## arabian knight

Oh wow a NEW Buzz Word of the day Food Insecure. How leftist that is. Climate change was not good enough global warming, and a million other liberal far reaching words that mean absolutely zilch in the USA. How far out are these folks when they start MAKING up words? Making up words that are so out of touch with the REAL USA and its many workings around every city every county every state. Food Insecurity MY LEFT FOOT. Is their a NEW dictionary out just for the liberal progressives the rest of us do not know about? How they wrap their minds around such words is WAY beyond many. LOL


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> Oh wow a NEW Buzz Word of the day Food Insecure. How leftist that is. Climate change was not good enough global warming, and a million other liberal far reaching words that mean absolutely zilch in the USA. How far out are these folks when they start MAKING up words? Making up words that are so out of touch with the REAL USA and its many workings around every city every county every state. Food Insecurity MY LEFT FOOT. Is their a NEW dictionary out just for the liberal progressives the rest of us do not know about? How they wrap their minds around such words is WAY beyond many. LOL


The rush to blame is getting old. Just because you don't know the saying does not mean the left came up with it. I see a real pattern of posting half truths and complete untruths in your posts. Are you just baiting or are you not actually researching things before you say them.

"What does &#8220;food insecure&#8221; mean?

Food insecurity is the most broadly-used measure of food deprivation in the United States. The USDA defines food insecurity as meaning &#8220;consistent access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources at times during the year.&#8221;

Acceptable shorthand terms for food insecurity are &#8220;hungry, or at risk of hunger,&#8221; and &#8220;hungry, or faced the threat of hunger.&#8221; Food insecurity can also accurately be described as &#8220;a financial juggling act, where sometimes the food ball gets dropped.&#8221;

"Food Security

*The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security* as existing &#8220;when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life&#8221;. Commonly, the concept of food security is defined as including both physical and economic access to food that meets people's dietary needs as well as their food preferences. In many countries, health problems related to dietary excess are an ever increasing threat, In fact, malnutrion and foodborne diarrhea are become double burden." http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/


----------



## Tricky Grama

In our country it is far more of a problem to be overweight. Children especially. Seems too many have been "Food Insecure" in their lives & had food poked at 'em. 
My pet charities include education for healthy food choices. Education regarding the fact that a fast food diet-some anyway-are bad for children. Should be a treat once in a while to take a kid to mickyd's. Kids shouldn't be raised on sodas, should be a special treat. 
The overweight children as well as adults are a HUGE problem in the USA. Most of these overweight kids will turn into diabetics, overweight adults. 
I see "Food Insecure" as all wrong for our country Just another 'feel bad so donate' mantra. I'll pull for the health of kids, thanks.


----------



## where I want to

My current favorite is a local Boys and Girls Club that has a summer baseball program. The person who runs it is full of enthusiasm for combining the play with a short class and a good lunch.


----------



## Irish Pixie

I think it's really sad that people have to mock something because they don't feel it pertains to them. Especially a serious situation like hungry kids.

I just don't understand it. If you don't feel it's a problem then don't donate, but to openly mock it? Why?


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> I think it's really sad that people have to mock something because they don't feel it pertains to them. Especially a serious situation like hungry kids.
> 
> I just don't understand it. If you don't feel it's a problem then don't donate, but to openly mock it? Why?


Because you lead us there with your let children starve remarks. People are not mocking programs as much as your comments.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> Because you lead us there with your let children starve remarks. People are not mocking programs as much as your comments.


Where did she say "let children starve" ?


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> Because you lead us there with your let children starve remarks. People are not mocking programs as much as your comments.


Please indicate where I have said anything about starving children? I don't think I have. And even if I did, I didn't lead you to believe anything, I simply posted something that was important to me. 

So you're saying that I'm being mocked personally? That's not very nice.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> To announce that "there should be no hungry children" as if its everyone else's problem IS what has helped create a world where more and more people think that's true and should come without their effort.
> *And no, that does not mean what I can see coming- that it's ok that children starve*.


Are you talking about yourself and just blaming it on others?


----------



## Guest

"I just don't understand it. If you don't feel it's a problem then don't donate, but to openly mock it? Why?"

By reading this thread it appears some are offended because their tax dollars are going to it through the USDA. Funny though the USDA budged is small compared to more nefarious departments. The same people fully support, the theft of you money, your imprisonment if you fail to hand it over and judge you morally corrupt if you oppose their favorite group.


----------



## HDRider

This thread repeats the pattern of the same people consistently lining up on the same side on an issue. 

It strikes me just how consistent we all are. There is a clear us and them, repeatedly, regardless of the issue.

It is a fundemental philosophical difference. 

We need two countries. We are too divided on our approach on governance, social issues and most everything else.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> I think it's really sad that people have to mock something because they don't feel it pertains to them. Especially a serious situation like hungry kids.
> 
> I just don't understand it. If you don't feel it's a problem then don't donate, but to openly mock it? Why?


There is no reason for any kids in the USA to be "food insecure". There is plenty of nutritious food available in our country and its made available to everyone. Not mocking anything.... just stating the facts. Ethiopia and numerous other third world countries have a food security issue, we do not. What we have is a irresponsible parent issue.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is no reason for any kids in the USA to be "food insecure". There is plenty of nutritious food available in our country and its made available to everyone. Not mocking anything.... just stating the facts. Ethiopia and numerous other third world countries have a food security issue, we do not. What we have is a irresponsible parent issue.


I agree. Yet there are still hungry kids. I recommended a couple programs, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.

I'm not dancing around the irresponsible parent issue today, been there and done that, and frankly I'm still dizzy and nauseous from the last time.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> Please indicate where I have said anything about starving children? I don't think I have. And even if I did, I didn't lead you to believe anything, I simply posted something that was important to me.
> 
> So you're saying that I'm being mocked personally? That's not very nice.


Yep, very ugly. But you really started the ball with post 6. But were responding personally before that. It is not a successful tactic of fund raising at the least. You didn't have to go there with the "are you advocating not feeding hungry children" remark when no one was. It was meant as hurtful criticism and was taken as such. The race downhill was off and unstoppable.


----------



## arabian knight

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is no reason for any kids in the USA to be "food insecure". There is plenty of nutritious food available in our country and its made available to everyone. Not mocking anything.... just stating the facts. Ethiopia and numerous other third world countries have a food security issue, we do not. What we have is a irresponsible parent issue.


 So true. Am I insecure today because I have only 2 slices of bread left? And one is the crust? Wow what a straight to the cellar some think this country is in. So many over weight kids from not getting the CORRECT foods but that is not being insecure. Just look at how much food is being tossed everyday now because someone in Government Obamas better half THINKS SHE KNOWS better and now so many schools are throwing away food no wonder some kids are hungry when they get home. Get Government Out Of Schools Lunch programs let that Cappuccino machine back IN~! 
And the schools that do not have a closed campus so many now are going to fast food places to eat. Many have them within Walking distances too.


----------



## Guest

HDRider said:


> This thread repeats the pattern of the same people consistently lining up on the same side on an issue.
> 
> It strikes me just how consistent we all are. There is a clear us and them, repeatedly, regardless of the issue.


I find it funny also,, Everyone blaming the other political side, as a former rabid conservative watching the antics of both sides truly turned me toward a anarchist/capitalist leaning. They are both the same just different pet programs and methods of theft.


----------



## HDRider

For the record, I am not in favor of anarchy.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree. Yet there are still hungry kids. I recommended a couple programs, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.
> 
> I'm not dancing around the irresponsible parent issue today, been there and done that, and frankly I'm still dizzy and nauseous from the last time.


So do you think its better to treat symptoms rather than cure the disease? I think we should root out the cause, in this case irresponsible parents, and solve the problem once and for all.


----------



## Guest

HDRider said:


> For the record, I am not in favor of anarchy.


No I do not not imagine you are, most people do not even know the philosophy behind the term they just imagine a Mad Max world. Aint it a great country we live in were we can earn our rights and privileges through government approved licences and programs. I do not support anarchy either, that is why I was more specific in the flavor.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So do you think its better to treat symptoms rather than cure the disease? I think we should root out the cause, in this case irresponsible parents, and solve the problem once and for all.


I think it's better to feed hungry kids. 

How are you going to "solve the problem once and for all" and not violate human and civil rights? It's so easy to say "just don't feed them" "jail the parent" "feed them bread and water" but it needs to be applicable to the real word. As I've said ad nauseum I think the system needs reform but I've yet to read a workable way to actually do that. 

The bottom line is you can't punish kids for what their parents have (or haven't) done.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> I think it's better to feed hungry kids.
> 
> How are you going to "solve the problem once and for all" and not violate human and civil rights? It's so easy to say "just don't feed them" "jail the parent" "feed them bread and water" but it needs to be applicable to the real word. As I've said ad nauseum I think the system needs reform but I've yet to read a workable way to actually do that.
> 
> The bottom line is you can't punish kids for what their parents have (or haven't) done.


I am not if favor of letting kids go hungry. I am in favor of punishing irresponsible parents. We seem to have no qualms about locking up otherwise good citizens when we catch them being too friendly with certain plants.... but cant seem to wrap our minds around locking up people who would abuse and neglect their children. In my way of thinking those parents lost their civil rights the day they opted to let their children suffer.


----------



## Patchouli

HDRider said:


> This thread repeats the pattern of the same people consistently lining up on the same side on an issue.
> 
> It strikes me just how consistent we all are. There is a clear us and them, repeatedly, regardless of the issue.
> 
> It is a fundemental philosophical difference.
> 
> We need two countries. We are too divided on our approach on governance, social issues and most everything else.


No we don't. What we actually need is for everyone to open their minds a little and make some attempt to actually understand everyone else. It's amazing how you can see people absolutely entrenched in an idea and then when they finally have to deal with it in real life through say a close friend or a family member or even themselves personally suddenly the lights come on and they see reality rather than the characterization they saw before. 

Irish Pixie started this thread with a reminder that a lot of kids go hungry in the Summer and here are a few places you can donate to and help keep them fed. And what happened? People had to turn it into a political free for all. People had to sneer at the idea that any kid actually goes hungry. People had to drag the Federal government into it even though the OP was about charities and had nothing to do with any government entities. 

So the real question to ask yourself here is why? Why did I have to come in here and pee all over this thread? What was the point? How are you making the country a better place? How are you making any effort to pull us together? Because we do not have to be like this. A few seconds of trying to understand instead of a knee jerk she's a liberal so I must denigrate whatever she says would have an amazing effect. We could have had an intelligent and helpful discussion here and we did not and you need to ask yourself why. Because if you really love this country we have got to stop doing this.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not if favor of letting kids go hungry. I am in favor of punishing irresponsible parents. We seem to have no qualms about locking up otherwise good citizens when we catch them being too friendly with certain plants.... but cant seem to wrap our minds around locking up people who would abuse and neglect their children. In my way of thinking those parents lost their civil rights the day they opted to let their children suffer.


As far as I know getting government benefits isn't illegal. Nor is running out of food, being an alcoholic, a junkie, disabled, or simply being irresponsible. If a parent is abusive they should be jailed because that is illegal. 

Well, it's all well and good that you think they've lost their civil rights but it's just your opinion. Try explaining that you see nothing wrong with certain plants (which I don't have a problem with either) to a judge after you're caught with them and see where that goes... nowhere cuz it's illegal. See where I'm going with this? 

I have no concrete ideas for reform that will work in the real world so I donate to a food bank's feed kids programs.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> No we don't. What we actually need is for everyone to open their minds a little and make some attempt to actually understand everyone else. It's amazing how you can see people absolutely entrenched in an idea and then when they finally have to deal with it in real life through say a close friend or a family member or even themselves personally suddenly the lights come on and they see reality rather than the characterization they saw before.
> 
> Irish Pixie started this thread with a reminder that a lot of kids go hungry in the Summer and here are a few places you can donate to and help keep them fed. And what happened? People had to turn it into a political free for all. People had to sneer at the idea that any kid actually goes hungry. People had to drag the Federal government into it even though the OP was about charities and had nothing to do with any government entities.
> 
> So the real question to ask yourself here is why? Why did I have to come in here and pee all over this thread? What was the point? How are you making the country a better place? How are you making any effort to pull us together? Because we do not have to be like this. A few seconds of trying to understand instead of a knee jerk she's a liberal so I must denigrate whatever she says would have an amazing effect. We could have had an intelligent and helpful discussion here and we did not and you need to ask yourself why. Because if you really love this country we have got to stop doing this.


But that is exactly what the ones receiving the lecture you want to deliver say- why did it have to come with nasty remarks no matter who said something different? 
Why now?


----------



## AmericanStand

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So do you think its better to treat symptoms rather than cure the disease? I think we should root out the cause, in this case irresponsible parents, and solve the problem once and for all.



This is like post #4 where this thread started to devolve. 
Each of you implying that fixing parents is more a priority than feeding kids. 
That and other things in post 4 imply that it should be done before we feed the kids. 

So let me be clear. No implications no hiding behind weasel words. 
It is preferable for the world to eliminate the disease first. We need to be rid of this just like measles ,polio, malaria and Ebola. 
But that will take long enough that people will die before a cure is found. 
So for the individuals that have the symptoms now it is preferable to treat the symptoms and keep them alive. 
We treat the symptoms now.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> This is like post #4 where this thread started to devolve.
> Each of you implying that fixing parents is more a priority than feeding kids.
> That and other things in post 4 imply that it should be done before we feed the kids.
> 
> So let me be clear. No implications no hiding behind weasel words.
> It is preferable for the world to eliminate the disease first. We need to be rid of this just like measles ,polio, malaria and Ebola.
> But that will take long enough that people will die before a cure is found.
> So for the individuals that have the symptoms now it is preferable to treat the symptoms and keep them alive.
> We treat the symptoms now.


A remark like that would have been civil enough to maybe short circuit the downward spiral. But that is not the way it was put, was it.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> But that is exactly what the ones receiving the lecture you want to deliver say- why did it have to come with nasty remarks no matter who said something different?
> Why now?


The question to ask yourself would be who started the thread downhill? Because it was not the OP.


----------



## Oxankle

The cowbird lays its eggs in another bird's nest and leaves all the parenting to the victim.

Here in the US we've gotten much like the cowbird; those who proliferate so freely that they can't rear their children just depend on others to feed, clothe and house them. Of course, some of them just kill the kid and go on about their business.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> A remark like that would have been civil enough to maybe short circuit the downward spiral. But that is not the way it was put, was it.


So we keep trying to make it civil and you keep trying to make it not. See a pattern here? And what he said has been said before multiple times in this thread.


----------



## mmoetc

Patchouli said:


> So we keep trying to make it civil and you keep trying to make it not. See a pattern here? And what he said has been said before multiple times in this thread.


Cut him a break. He's "striving".


----------



## arabian knight

My BEST and Favorite thing about being a kid was on a Saturday night going down to the local diner and listening to the jukebox and getting a Hamburger, Fries and a MALT. Yummy in the tummy. And many of those diners have gone bey bye. And now a kid can't even get a candy bar a school? Wow.


----------



## Guest

"And now a kid can't even get a candy bar a school? Wow."

AHHHH so wrong, I went to school so long ago if you got caught with a candy bar it got taken away along with giving you a note home from the teacher. We were allowed to eat our peanut butter and jelly sandwiches though, good luck with that now.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> The question to ask yourself would be who started the thread downhill? Because it was not the OP.


Ah, the old 'he hit met first' argument. But I think she actually did by including the statement "There shouldn't be a single hungrry or food insecure child in this country.' That was a generalized lecture about our country and the food insecure was like lighting a fire. The second post agreed and add 'but we need to look at root causes too.' The next post was a contradiction that it was not as important as doing what she wanted. The next was that it was important. The next I skip. But the next was by the OP and not only included the 'are you suggesting not feeding hungry kids....?' And brought up 'Liberal bashing.'
And that was the sea change was set.
So although the OP was not too party line, it was the OP that sent it on the political track. And stuffed as much fuel onto the fire as anyone here.


----------



## HDRider

Patchouli said:


> So we keep trying to make it civil and you keep trying to make it not. See a pattern here? And what he said has been said before multiple times in this thread.


You keep saying think like me, see things like me, open your mind like me, and it will solve the problem. 

That illustrates my point about a divided country. I can't think like you. I don't see things like you do do. My mind is open, just don't agree with your approach. 

I don't belive in socialism. I don't belive in starving children. 

We are two countries now. We are two peoples with irreconcilable differences. 

You accuse me of devolving the thread because I raised a larger issue than handing out sandwiches to hungry kids. I don't want kids to be hungry regardless of how many times it is repeated. 

My statement stands. We need two countries. You solve your problems your way. And I wish you all the best. I'll solve my problems my way and expect the same well wishes from you.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> As far as I know getting government benefits isn't illegal. Nor is running out of food, being an alcoholic, a junkie, disabled, or simply being irresponsible. If a parent is abusive they should be jailed because that is illegal.


Nope, none of those things are currently illegal.... thats what we have legislators for. 


Irish Pixie said:


> Well, it's all well and good that you think they've lost their civil rights but it's just your opinion. Try explaining that you see nothing wrong with certain plants (which I don't have a problem with either) to a judge after you're caught with them and see where that goes... nowhere cuz it's illegal. See where I'm going with this?


Not really. My point was that if being friendly with a plant can cause one to lose their right of freedom... surely allowing ones children to go hungry should qualify one for the same fate. 



Irish Pixie said:


> I have no concrete ideas for reform that will work in the real world so I donate to a food bank's feed kids programs.


Very commendable.... if you think those irresponsible parents will bother to utilize yet another avenue to get their kiddies fed. They have obviously failed to do so with all the other methods, programs ect..... or does this food bank take the meals to the kids homes and sit and watch them eat?


----------



## Evons hubby

AmericanStand said:


> This is like post #4 where this thread started to devolve.
> Each of you implying that fixing parents is more a priority than feeding kids.
> That and other things in post 4 imply that it should be done before we feed the kids.
> 
> So let me be clear. No implications no hiding behind weasel words.
> It is preferable for the world to eliminate the disease first. We need to be rid of this just like measles ,polio, malaria and Ebola.
> But that will take long enough that people will die before a cure is found.
> So for the individuals that have the symptoms now it is preferable to treat the symptoms and keep them alive.
> We treat the symptoms now.


Actually my statement early in this thread as well as now has been to feed the kiddies "and cure the disease" at the same time. Take the kiddies OUT of that home and get them into a responsible parents home so they get fed properly..... NOW. While you are there picking up these kids and getting them fed you arrest the neglectful parents and lock them up.


----------



## where I want to

Time to abandon this thread.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Actually my statement early in this thread as well as now has been to feed the kiddies "and cure the disease" at the same time. Take the kiddies OUT of that home and get them into a responsible parents home so they get fed properly..... NOW. While you are there picking up these kids and getting them fed you arrest the neglectful parents and lock them up.


You do realize that unless the parent has done something illegal this cannot happen, right? You can't seize kids unless they are being abused, and just being poor or on government benefits is not abuse. You also can't arrest the parents unless they have actually (not just your opinion) done something illegal.

People have rights. Even people you don't care for or think are lazy and irresponsible.


----------



## Irish Pixie

HDRider said:


> You accuse me of devolving the thread because I raised a larger issue than handing out sandwiches to hungry kids. I don't want kids to be hungry regardless of how many times it is repeated.


Handing out sandwiches to kids is what the thread was about. SMH


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that unless the parent has done something illegal this cannot happen, right? You can't seize kids unless they are being abused, and just being poor or on government benefits is not abuse. You also can't arrest the parents unless they have actually (not just your opinion) done something illegal.
> 
> People have rights. Even people you don't care for or think are lazy and irresponsible.


I am aware that people have rights..... but I am also aware that those rights can be taken away if one breaks the law... if not feeding ones children is not against the law I have to ask why not?


----------



## Ziptie

Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that unless the parent has done something illegal this cannot happen, right? You can't seize kids unless they are being abused, and just being poor or on government benefits is not abuse. You also can't arrest the parents unless they have actually (not just your opinion) done something illegal.
> 
> People have rights. Even people you don't care for or think are lazy and irresponsible.


But if the parents can not feed/do not their children that is illegal. Right? 

Going to get in-trouble for saying this.....I keep thinking about how this thread would be different if we were talking about people not being about to feed their pets.eep: People would be carrying pitchforks and talking about sending the owners to jail(or shooting them) and not feeding the neglectful owners...and so many people would agree.


----------



## painterswife

Ziptie said:


> But if the parents can not feed/do not their children that is illegal. Right?
> 
> Going to get in-trouble for saying this.....I keep thinking about how this thread would be different if we were talking about people not being about to feed their pets.eep: People would be carrying pitchforks and talking about sending the owners to jail(or shooting them) and not feeding the neglectful owners...and so many people would agree.


Do we put people in jail because they can't feed themselves? Jail is for those committing crimes. If a parent was purposely with holding food it would be a crime. If they are working has hard as they can to feed a keep the family together being hungry can happen. We should not take the children away if feeding them will keep them healthy and the family together.


----------



## AmericanStand

HDRider said:


> You accuse me of devolving the thread because I raised a larger issue than handing out sandwiches to hungry kids..



There was nothing wrong with a discussion about other issues. But when you bring that issue up in a thread that the title focuses on one narrow thing it IS seen as relating to that issue or widening the discussion to include it. 
So for most people they see it as devolving the issue. 
EXACTLY what you say you were accused of.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am aware that people have rights..... but I am also aware that those rights can be taken away if one breaks the law... if not feeding ones children is not against the law I have to ask why not?


Point taken and I apologize for being a bit slow on the uptake. Not feeding your kid _and letting him or her starve_ would be abuse and illegal. Not being able to feed your kid and/or getting benefits and food from a food bank is not illegal. I have never alleged that there are starving kids in the US. I'm talking about hungry kids that have to worry about when their next meal will be.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> Do we put people in jail because they can't feed themselves? Jail is for those committing crimes. If a parent was purposely with holding food it would be a crime. If they are working has hard as they can to feed a keep the family together being hungry can happen. We should not take the children away if feeding them will keep them healthy and the family together.


Nope, we dont put people in jail for not feeding themselves.... but we should put people in jail for neglecting their kids. There is simply NO reason for any parent to not be able to feed their lil ones in this land of plenty. There are dozens of government programs not counting the thousands of charities that will provide the means to anyone to buy groceries. All one needs do is apply themselves enough to obtain a little food for their own kids. Or is that asking too much of a parent?


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Point taken. Not feeding your kid _and letting him or her starve_ would be abuse and illegal. Not being able to feed your kid and/or getting benefits and food from a food bank is not illegal. I have never alleged that there are starving kids in the US. I'm talking about hungry kids that have to worry about when their next meal will be.


I have no problem with folks who are down on their luck and need to seek some assistance.... but with all of the government programs and charities there are providing food there is simply no excuse for any child in this country to be going to bed hungry.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have no problem with folks who are down on their luck and need to seek some assistance.... but with all of the government programs and charities there are providing food there is simply no excuse for any child in this country to be going to bed hungry.


I agree, there shouldn't be a hungry kid with all the programs. But for whatever reason there is... and that's why I mentioned the food bank's summer program umpteen pages ago. It's real, I'm not making this up. There are hungry kids in the US, especially in the summer months when there isn't school. 

Neither my husband or I were born with silver spoons in our mouths, we've worked hard for everything with have, and did it without government help (except for heinous amounts of student loan debt which has been paid off for years) but rather than get bitter (like some here obviously did) we feel that we have enough to share. For every dollar we donate that's less you'll be taxed for the USDA food that goes to my food bank's programs.


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> With classes ending for the summer many kids that rely on school food programs will go hungry. If you are able, please donate to* No Kid Hungry*, your local food bank, and/or your local food program.
> 
> There shouldn't be a single hungry or food insecure kid in this country.


Absolutely amazing, you want me to donate to a group with $40 million in revenue , $17 million in Salaries, $13 million in other expenses and some other crazy expenses leaving $194,809 to feed those starving, food insecure, malnourished children, no twinkie for a snack and going to bed hungry kids.
I can do better by giving a kid a quarter!


----------



## painterswife

po boy said:


> Absolutely amazing, you want me to donate to a group with $40 million in revenue , $17 million in Salaries, $13 million in other expenses and some other crazy expenses leaving $194,809 to feed those starving, food insecure, malnourished children, no twinkie for a snack and going to bed hungry kids.
> I can do better by giving a kid a quarter!


Do you have cite for those numbers? Those are not the numbers I have found. 
http://www.nokidhungry.org/about-us/financial

http://www.nokidhungry.org/pdfs/SOS_2013-12_TAX_Form_990.pdf

That 194,809.00 is what is left after they spent close to 38 million feeding the children. You really need to do better homework.


----------



## HDRider

Irish Pixie said:


> Handing out sandwiches to kids is what the thread was about. SMH


Maybe we should have simply talked about what kind of sandwiches...


----------



## po boy

painterswife said:


> Do you have cite for those numbers? Those are not the numbers I have found.
> http://www.nokidhungry.org/about-us/financial
> 
> http://www.nokidhungry.org/pdfs/SOS_2013-12_TAX_Form_990.pdf
> 
> That 194,809.00 is what is left after they spent close to 38 million feeding the children. You really need to do better homework.


Show me the $38 Mil they spent feeding children.

ETA: That $38 million includes those salaries I mentioned and *Other *expense. That's other than feeding rug rats.


----------



## AmericanStand

po boy said:


> Show me the $38 Mil they spent feeding children.



Um I don't think they can if they spent it feeding the children.


----------



## painterswife

po boy said:


> Show me the $38 Mil they spent feeding children.


 "Share Our Strength had total operating expenses (excluding in-kind and the New York City Wine & Food Festival) of $39.8 million in pursuit of ending childhood hunger in America. Approximately 70%â$27.88 millionâof these expenses were invested in the No Kid Hungry programming to feed kids where they live, learn and play."

Oops 27.88 million.


----------



## coolrunnin

According to charity navigator they spend 75.6% toward their goal (feeding kids) not bad I would say.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is no reason for any kids in the USA to be "food insecure". There is plenty of nutritious food available in our country and its made available to everyone. Not mocking anything.... just stating the facts. Ethiopia and numerous other third world countries have a food security issue, we do not. What we have is a irresponsible parent issue.


With all due respect, you are wrong. Regardless of what you call it, food insecurity is very real. I see it every day where I work. Yes, there is plenty of nutritious food in this country but, if a person does not have access to it, it may as well be on the moon. 

Here is what food insecurity looks like where I work. 
Nutritious food is sold in grocery stores. There isn't a grocery store within 10 miles in any direction from where I work. There are party stores and convenience stores but their stock in trade is processed food/junk food. No fruit/vegetables to be had in those stores. There are fast food places but they don't sell fruit/vegetables either. If I want a bag of chips or a hot dog, I'd have plenty of options but if I want an apple, I've got to travel to get it.

You're probably thinking "so just get in your car and drive to the grocery store". Most families where I work do not have a car. They walk or take the bus everywhere. There's a limit on how much you can carry on the bus. There is no way you can carry enough groceries for a week on the bus. Plus, the bus isn't free. When you're juggling finances to pay the rent, utilities, etc., multiple bus rides per week to the grocery store just aren't practical. Especially if you need that bus fare money to get to and from work. 

So, yes, parents are going to buy the food that they have access to. Which, where I work, means walking to the party store because it is close and buying the food you can, which is most likely some sort of processed food. 

Next, you're probably thinking "plant a garden". That's fine if your landlord allows it but most of the landlords where I work won't. I'd love to start a community garden at work but it would be destroyed by the unsavory element in the neighborhood. We had a lovely flower garden started by a previous employee, but it has since been trashed.

So, yes, food insecurity is a very real thing. It's easy to look at the problem and declare it just an "irresponsible parent" problem but the reality is much more complicated.


----------



## po boy

painterswife said:


> "Share Our Strength had total operating expenses (excluding in-kind and the New York City Wine & Food Festival) of $39.8 million in pursuit of ending childhood hunger in America. Approximately 70%â$27.88 millionâof these expenses were invested in the No Kid Hungry programming to feed kids where they live, learn and play."
> 
> Oops 27.88 million.


I'm talking facts based on tax returns!
*Your are talking propaganda!*


----------



## painterswife

po boy said:


> I'm talking facts based on tax returns!
> *Your are talking propaganda!*


Well then tell us what that 194, 000.00 number was from the 2290. You claim it is what they had left to spend on food. You want to admit you are wrong?


----------



## po boy

SLFarmMI said:


> With all due respect, you are wrong. Regardless of what you call it, food insecurity is very real. I see it every day where I work. Yes, there is plenty of nutritious food in this country but, if a person does not have access to it, it may as well be on the moon.
> 
> Here is what food insecurity looks like where I work.
> Nutritious food is sold in grocery stores. There isn't a grocery store within 10 miles in any direction from where I work. There are party stores and convenience stores but their stock in trade is processed food/junk food. No fruit/vegetables to be had in those stores. There are fast food places but they don't sell fruit/vegetables either. If I want a bag of chips or a hot dog, I'd have plenty of options but if I want an apple, I've got to travel to get it.
> 
> You're probably thinking "so just get in your car and drive to the grocery store". Most families where I work do not have a car. They walk or take the bus everywhere. There's a limit on how much you can carry on the bus. There is no way you can carry enough groceries for a week on the bus. Plus, the bus isn't free. When you're juggling finances to pay the rent, utilities, etc., multiple bus rides per week to the grocery store just aren't practical. Especially if you need that bus fare money to get to and from work.
> 
> So, yes, parents are going to buy the food that they have access to. Which, where I work, means walking to the party store because it is close and buying the food you can, which is most likely some sort of processed food.
> 
> Next, you're probably thinking "plant a garden". That's fine if your landlord allows it but most of the landlords where I work won't. I'd love to start a community garden at work but it would be destroyed by the unsavory element in the neighborhood. We had a lovely flower garden started by a previous employee, but it has since been trashed.
> 
> So, yes, food insecurity is a very real thing. It's easy to look at the problem and declare it just an "irresponsible parent" problem but the reality is much more complicated.


Simply WOW,
Ten miles to a grocery store and people are starving!
That's less than $6 in gas. Use your head, buy in bulk, share the expense or/and plant a garden!
.
ETA I'm about 15 miles from a decent grocery store!


----------



## po boy

painterswife said:


> Well then tell us what that 194, 000.00 number was from the 2290. You claim it is what they had left to spend on food. You want to admit you are wrong?


Sure, After you prove I am wrong! Go for it!!!!


----------



## SLFarmMI

po boy said:


> Simply WOW,
> Ten miles to a grocery store and people are starving!
> That's less than $6 in gas. Use your head, buy in bulk, share the expense or/and plant a garden!
> .


Kind of hard to use $6 in gas when neither you nor your neighbors have a car. Also kind of difficult to plant a garden when you are renting and the landlord says no.


----------



## painterswife

po boy said:


> Sure, After you prove I am wrong! Go for it!!!!


Line 19 of the 990 revenue less expenses =194,809.00

Your turn.


----------



## po boy

Good God Woman!!!
They raised Close to $40 million and spent only $194 thousand on the *********!!! They wasted 80%


----------



## Patchouli

HDRider said:


> You keep saying think like me, see things like me, open your mind like me, and it will solve the problem.
> 
> That illustrates my point about a divided country. I can't think like you. I don't see things like you do do. My mind is open, just don't agree with your approach.
> 
> I don't belive in socialism. I don't belive in starving children.
> 
> We are two countries now. We are two peoples with irreconcilable differences.
> 
> You accuse me of devolving the thread because I raised a larger issue than handing out sandwiches to hungry kids. I don't want kids to be hungry regardless of how many times it is repeated.
> 
> My statement stands. We need two countries. You solve your problems your way. And I wish you all the best. I'll solve my problems my way and expect the same well wishes from you.


How can you not believe in starving children? 

You know what I'll tell you something. If you ever come to Little Rock let me know and I will treat you to some BBQ and we'll see how much we actually agree on. Because I would be willing to bet there is a whole lot more we agree on than what we don't.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is no reason for any kids in the USA to be "food insecure". There is plenty of nutritious food available in our country and its made available to everyone. Not mocking anything.... just stating the facts. Ethiopia and numerous other third world countries have a food security issue, we do not. What we have is a irresponsible parent issue.


Absolutely. And a LOT of fat kids.


----------



## painterswife

po boy said:


> Good God Woman!!!
> They raised Close to $40 million and spent only $194 thousand on the *********!!! They wasted 80%


Revenue minus expenses mean that is what they had left. Expenses includes what they spent on the programs.

Blowing up words does not make you right when you are so wrong.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Oxankle said:


> The cowbird lays its eggs in another bird's nest and leaves all the parenting to the victim.
> 
> Here in the US we've gotten much like the cowbird; those who proliferate so freely that they can't rear their children just depend on others to feed, clothe and house them. Of course, some of them just kill the kid and go on about their business.


Post of the day award.


----------



## 7thswan

SLFarmMI said:


> Kind of hard to use $6 in gas when neither you nor your neighbors have a car. Also kind of difficult to plant a garden when you are renting and the landlord says no.


HAHA...just like I saw that that woman in flint picking up "free" diapers in her Caddy SUV on the news asking us all to donate. HA, I guess she need that Caddy to haul all those money makers around to pick up the "freebies"!


----------



## 7thswan

po boy said:


> Good God Woman!!!
> They raised Close to $40 million and spent only $194 thousand on the *********!!! They wasted 80%


Look how much cottagecheezerear's "charity"actualy gave away -it's a huge joke.


----------



## Tricky Grama

po boy said:


> Simply WOW,
> Ten miles to a grocery store and people are starving!
> That's less than $6 in gas. Use your head, buy in bulk, share the expense or/and plant a garden!
> .
> ETA I'm about 15 miles from a decent grocery store!


Clearly,you are food insecure. Get thee to a free pantry!


----------



## arabian knight

This new buzz word isa so full of holes. food insecure my Aunt Fanny.


----------



## po boy

Tricky Grama said:


> Clearly,you are food insecure. Get thee to a free pantry!


You are nobody if you are not food insecure!


----------



## SLFarmMI

7thswan said:


> HAHA...just like I saw that that woman in flint picking up "free" diapers in her Caddy SUV on the news asking us all to donate. HA, I guess she need that Caddy to haul all those money makers around to pick up the "freebies"!


Never said there weren't some folks who are abusing the system. There are. However, in my experience, those aren't the majority. They're just the ones who draw people's attention. 

My point was that childhood hunger in America is not as simple as irresponsible parenting. There are many factors that contribute to childhood hunger and/or food insecurity. Solutions need to address these factors or nothing will ever change.


----------



## Roadking

Hmmm, around here, must be winter for the food insecure. Every snow storm, all the eggs, milk and bread vanish...Guess they like french toast. 
Summer...can't give excess garden produce away...

Matt


----------



## Patchouli

7thswan said:


> Look how much cottagecheezerear's "charity"actualy gave away -it's a huge joke.



Really? Sometimes I feel like I am stuck back in Jr. High around here.....


----------



## Oxankle

It is still a free country; I've never seen anyone chained by the ankle to any particular spot in the US. 

If you are so far from a grocery that you cannot feed your children MOVE. Stop complaining and find a way to go where the living is better. If you have no skills that will permit you to earn get off your bum and learn to do something. 

A good many of the people whining are those who wasted their youth, learning nothing in school, playing at life with weed and beer, never looking down the road. Naturally when the realities of life come home they are at a disadvantage. 

Around here there are plenty of "poor". I see them out mowing lawns, painting houses, clerking at Walmart, hauling away garbage. Only thing is, most of them live within their income, feed their kids and pay their own bills. Not at all what I'd call poor--they are the working class backbone of America. They pay the taxes, they raise the next generation of engineers and doctors, generals and teachers, and they don't have to apologize to anyone for anything.

We have plenty of snobby,selfish elites; probably almost as many as we have grasping gimmee, gimmee, gimmee's, but the country is loaded with self-sufficient people who go on daily about the business of rearing their families without complaint.


----------



## 7thswan

Patchouli said:


> Really? Sometimes I feel like I am stuck back in Jr. High around here.....


Liberials solutions are all straight from Jr High.


----------



## no really

The closest town to me is the county seat (pop. Around 2000) is 60 miles to the nearest grocery store, no public transportation. People manage to go to the grocery store, the food bank is for the ones that can't afford food for one reason or another. 

I fully support helping those that have difficult times.


----------



## Irish Pixie

po boy said:


> Simply WOW,
> Ten miles to a grocery store and people are starving!
> That's less than $6 in gas. Use your head, buy in bulk, share the expense or/and plant a garden!
> .
> ETA I'm about 15 miles from a decent grocery store!


You do understand that not everyone has access to a car or public transportation, right? When you don't have transportation how are you going to buy in bulk? 

Sigh. Again, not everyone can garden. 

I'm about 20 miles from a good grocery store but I have a car and I imagine you do too. You do realize that everyone's situation is different, don't you?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Roadking said:


> Hmmm, around here, must be winter for the food insecure. Every snow storm, all the eggs, milk and bread vanish...Guess they like french toast.
> Summer...can't give excess garden produce away...
> 
> Matt


Again, not everywhere is like your "around here." 

It baffles me that people can't understand that living conditions vary tremendously around the country.


----------



## Evons hubby

SLFarmMI said:


> With all due respect, you are wrong. Regardless of what you call it, food insecurity is very real. I see it every day where I work. Yes, there is plenty of nutritious food in this country but, if a person does not have access to it, it may as well be on the moon.
> 
> Here is what food insecurity looks like where I work.
> Nutritious food is sold in grocery stores. There isn't a grocery store within 10 miles in any direction from where I work. There are party stores and convenience stores but their stock in trade is processed food/junk food. No fruit/vegetables to be had in those stores. There are fast food places but they don't sell fruit/vegetables either. If I want a bag of chips or a hot dog, I'd have plenty of options but if I want an apple, I've got to travel to get it.
> 
> You're probably thinking "so just get in your car and drive to the grocery store". Most families where I work do not have a car. They walk or take the bus everywhere. There's a limit on how much you can carry on the bus. There is no way you can carry enough groceries for a week on the bus. Plus, the bus isn't free. When you're juggling finances to pay the rent, utilities, etc., multiple bus rides per week to the grocery store just aren't practical. Especially if you need that bus fare money to get to and from work.
> 
> So, yes, parents are going to buy the food that they have access to. Which, where I work, means walking to the party store because it is close and buying the food you can, which is most likely some sort of processed food.
> 
> Next, you're probably thinking "plant a garden". That's fine if your landlord allows it but most of the landlords where I work won't. I'd love to start a community garden at work but it would be destroyed by the unsavory element in the neighborhood. We had a lovely flower garden started by a previous employee, but it has since been trashed.
> 
> So, yes, food insecurity is a very real thing. It's easy to look at the problem and declare it just an "irresponsible parent" problem but the reality is much more complicated.


A responsible parent will figure out a way to get food to their kids.... even if they have to relocate to a different neighborhood. An irresponsible parent will whine and moan and come up with a thousand excuses.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, not everywhere is like your "around here."
> 
> It baffles me that people can't understand that living conditions vary tremendously around the country.


There arent many grocery stores or jobs on the north pole..... and not many folks choose to live there as a result. If one cant make a living where they are and cant feed their kids because of it they really should move!


----------



## no really

SLFarmMI said:


> Kind of hard to use $6 in gas when neither you nor your neighbors have a car. Also kind of difficult to plant a garden when you are renting and the landlord says no.


Just curious about the area. No cars in the area ok, is there public transportation? Do these people all work in the immediate area? Do they ever venture out?


----------



## mmoetc

Oxankle said:


> It is still a free country; I've never seen anyone chained by the ankle to any particular spot in the US.
> 
> If you are so far from a grocery that you cannot feed your children MOVE. Stop complaining and find a way to go where the living is better. If you have no skills that will permit you to earn get off your bum and learn to do something.
> 
> A good many of the people whining are those who wasted their youth, learning nothing in school, playing at life with weed and beer, never looking down the road. Naturally when the realities of life come home they are at a disadvantage.
> 
> Around here there are plenty of "poor". I see them out mowing lawns, painting houses, clerking at Walmart, hauling away garbage. Only thing is, most of them live within their income, feed their kids and pay their own bills. Not at all what I'd call poor--they are the working class backbone of America. They pay the taxes, they raise the next generation of engineers and doctors, generals and teachers, and they don't have to apologize to anyone for anything.
> 
> We have plenty of snobby,selfish elites; probably almost as many as we have grasping gimmee, gimmee, gimmee's, but the country is loaded with self-sufficient people who go on daily about the business of rearing their families without complaint.


And many of those walmart clerks and other hard working people are the ones being paid so little they're eligible for SNAP. All that government largesse goes right through the stores that accept the cards and then pay their employees little enough to need the cards but the stockholders are happy. Happy until the government cuts back and Walmart's profits drop. Which they did last year and walmart, in meetings with investors, blamed partially on government reductions in aid programs.

Now tell me how I judge the gray haired gent in front of me at the grocerystore this morning. He paid for his sugar, pie crusts, vinegar and a couple of other things with his SNAP card. He paid for his bottle of vodka, case of beer and dog treats with cash.


----------



## 7thswan

mmoetc said:


> And many of those walmart clerks and other hard working people are the ones being paid so little they're eligible for SNAP. All that government largesse goes right through the stores that accept the cards and then pay their employees little enough to need the cards but the stockholders are happy. Happy until the government cuts back and Walmart's profits drop. Which they did last year and walmart, in meetings with investors, blamed partially on government reductions in aid programs.
> 
> Now tell me how I judge the gray haired gent in front of me at the grocerystore this morning. He paid for his sugar, pie crusts, vinegar and a couple of other things with his SNAP card. He paid for his bottle of vodka, case of beer and dog treats with cash.


Maybe he was honest. Arround here, strip clubs, liquor stores, gambleing joints ect. all take them. Not to mention they are traded for cash, 10 dollars to 1.


----------



## wr

Patchouli said:


> Really? Sometimes I feel like I am stuck back in Jr. High around here.....


It may come as a surprise to some that comments like this just gain publicly sympathy and increase recognition which can result in more votes from the undecided.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There arent many grocery stores or jobs on the north pole..... and not many folks choose to live there as a result. If one cant make a living where they are and cant feed their kids because of it they really should move!


That's one of those really really easy to say statements that don't translate to real life well, IMO. Those making minimum wage can barely pay regular bills never mind save for moving expenses and first last and security.


----------



## mmoetc

7thswan said:


> Maybe he was honest. Arround here, strip clubs, liquor stores, gambleing joints ect. all take them. Not to mention they are traded for cash, 10 dollars to 1.


What makes him honest? Are we not still supplementing his alcohol consumption whether he spends his benefits on pie fixings or pole dances( and what a wonderful state you live in that SNAP benefits can be used in strip clubs)?


----------



## where I want to

wr said:


> It may come as a surprise to some that comments like this just gain publicly sympathy and increase recognition which can result in more votes from the undecided.


I doubt I would vote for someone just because another takes a cheap shot at them. If that really happened, candidates would be filling the airways with ads calling themselves names. No, I suspect that it is more likely to simply dislike the name caller without increasing affection for the recipient.


----------



## painterswife

[No message]


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> I doubt I would vote for someone just because another takes a cheap shot at them. If that really happened, candidates would be filling the airways with ads calling themselves names. No, I suspect that it is more likely to simply dislike the name caller without increasing affection for the recipient.


I just can not comprehend the mindset of someone who has to name call all the time. It must be hard to live your life when you appear to be so filled with hate that you must constantly feel the need to hit out in such an ugly way.


----------



## wr

where I want to said:


> I doubt I would vote for someone just because another takes a cheap shot at them. If that really happened, candidates would be filling the airways with ads calling themselves names. No, I suspect that it is more likely to simply dislike the name caller without increasing affection for the recipient.


I'm pretty careful with my vote and do a lot of research but it's amazing how many people hit the voting booth and go down the list looking for a name they recognize.


----------



## where I want to

mmoetc said:


> And many of those walmart clerks and other hard working people are the ones being paid so little they're eligible for SNAP. All that government largesse goes right through the stores that accept the cards and then pay their employees little enough to need the cards but the stockholders are happy. Happy until the government cuts back and Walmart's profits drop. Which they did last year and walmart, in meetings with investors, blamed partially on government reductions in aid programs.
> 
> Now tell me how I judge the gray haired gent in front of me at the grocerystore this morning. He paid for his sugar, pie crusts, vinegar and a couple of other things with his SNAP card. He paid for his bottle of vodka, case of beer and dog treats with cash.


This repetitive "corporate charity" song is getting pretty old. It's a clever distortion created to deflect anger from those getting ever increasing government subsidies on to that most favored villain- The Corporation. 
If that is true than it applies to all government employees- teachers, contractors, etc too, as they are paid for service that others could take on themselves if they weren't able to pawn it off on others. Just corporate greed who should be paying employees of their own to do it. 
No, saying this is like the tail wagging the dog. Just the reverse of what it really is.
What feeds corporate greed are the advocates of endless increases in government benefits because, if people actually had to live off their wages, the corporations would be required to pay more to find people willing to work for them. And people would strike for increases in pay out of need, having that as the only option. And would favor unions to increase their bargaining power.
Welfare actually suppresses wages. And it allows less labor troubles. 
Yeah, corporations take advantage of welfare because welfare is there to be taken advantage of. The low corprate wages don't create welfare, welfare creates low wages.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> I just can not comprehend the mindset of someone who has to name call all the time. It must be hard to live your life when you appear to be so filled with hate that you must constantly feel the need to hit out in such an ugly way.


Hate? These people You admire are a Joke to the rest of us. Nothing more,nothing less.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> Hate? These people You admire are a Joke to the rest of us. Nothing more,nothing less.


Where did I say I admired anyone we have discussed?


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> This repetitive "corporate charity" song is getting pretty old. It's a clever distortion created to deflect anger from those getting ever increasing government subsidies on to that most favored villain- The Corporation.
> If that is true than it applies to all government employees- teachers, contractors, etc too, as they are paid for service that others could take on themselves if they weren't able to pawn it off on others. Just corporate greed who should be paying employees of their own to do it.
> No, saying this is like the tail wagging the dog. Just the reverse of what it really is.
> What feeds corporate greed are the advocates of endless increases in government benefits because, if people actually had to live off their wages, the corporations would be required to pay more to find people willing to work for them. And people would strike for increases in pay out of need, having that as the only option. And would favor unions to increase their bargaining power.
> Welfare actually suppresses wages. And it allows less labor troubles.
> Yeah, corporations take advantage of welfare because welfare is there to be taken advantage of. The low corprate wages don't create welfare, welfare creates low wages.


And who are those advocates that benefit? The worker doesn't really care if he gets a paycheck for $200 and $200 in government bennies. At the end of the day he's got $400. If he gets $150 in pay and $250 in bennies his math remains the same, but the company's just got much better. You're right that increased welfare creates low wages, and companies and shareholders are just fine with that.


----------



## kasilofhome

Well, there should be no transportation issues that bar or impede the locals in my community from having to go to food banks over stores ....it located am lost across of the grocery store it's across and one lot left.


----------



## where I want to

mmoetc said:


> And who are those advocates that benefit? The worker doesn't really care if he gets a paycheck for $200 and $200 in government bennies. At the end of the day he's got $400. If he gets $150 in pay and $250 in bennies his math remains the same, but the company's just got much better. You're right that increased welfare creates low wages, and companies and shareholders are just fine with that.


Yes, they are but the fault does not reside with them for it's existence. The fault resides with those who support more and more welfare, which actually is a double strike as people on welfare do not generally pay income taxes. The ever dwindling non-welfare workers carry more and more of that burden.
But the harm to the public from welfare is not restricted to suppressed wages and actual outgo of benefits bit must also pay for an army of government employees, lobbyists, grant writers, advocates, social workers, etc to manage it all. It's a geometrically 8increasing burden.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Well, now, it seems we have to take several things into the equation. 

Take out those kids who's parents get SNAP. Seems that's about 40% now?
Add in those who cannot garden. Guess those free containers from nurseries filled w/dirt outside their door won't do. 
Add in those who cannot get to a gro. store. Well, wait, they'll be dead in a couple weeks so nevermind.
Subtract those from wealthy families...unless they've looked "food insecure" to anyone.
Subtract those from middleclass families, if you can find any of those after 6 yrs of this admin.
Add in those w/o transportation who act/look "food insecure".

Betcha we still won't get to the # of fat kids in the country. BTW, they often look "food insecure".


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> That's one of those really really easy to say statements that don't translate to real life well, IMO. Those making minimum wage can barely pay regular bills never mind save for moving expenses and first last and security.


Last and security should be a break even... provided they havent trashed their current residence.... (rare in my experience) and first month rent is just one more rent payment whether they move or not. As to moving expense..... put your left foot in front of your right foot, then put your right foot in front of your left foot. Repeat as needed to get where you are going. That is a tried and true method proven effective over centuries of use.


----------



## wr

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Last and security should be a break even... provided they havent trashed their current residence.... (rare in my experience) and first month rent is just one more rent payment whether they move or not. As to moving expense..... put your left foot in front of your right foot, then put your right foot in front of your left foot. Repeat as needed to get where you are going. That is a tried and true method proven effective over centuries of use.


I'm not sure how the landlord tenant regulations work in the US but I'm guessing that it's like Canada and varies from state to state but in Alberta, a landlord is not legally obligated to return a damage deposit immediately upon move out. It's been a while since I've had to deal with such a thing but I believe it has to be mailed out no later than 2 weeks after a tenant has vacated a unit. The idea is that it allows landlords time to find any damages that may not be immediately obvious in a walk through. 

Certainly, you do get it back with a nominal amount of interest but landlords here seem to obey the laws maximum required limit very diligently. I'm not saying this is the case everywhere but in Alberta, in order to move, you need the security deposit you won't get back for two to three weeks to secure a place that makes more sense and that doesn't include in transfer of services charges relating to utility services which are seldom included with rent.


----------



## Patchouli

Yvonne's hubby said:


> A responsible parent will figure out a way to get food to their kids.... even if they have to relocate to a different neighborhood. An irresponsible parent will whine and moan and come up with a thousand excuses.


And how does one relocate with no money or transportation?


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> I doubt I would vote for someone just because another takes a cheap shot at them. If that really happened, candidates would be filling the airways with ads calling themselves names. No, I suspect that it is more likely to simply dislike the name caller without increasing affection for the recipient.


I tend to agree with wr. It earns the person being insulted some sympathy points and also degrades any position the insulter takes. It's kind of hard to take someone's political perspective serious when they lob insults like a 6th grader.


----------



## JeffreyD

Patchouli said:


> And how does one relocate with no money or transportation?


Feet, friends, bicycle, borrow a car. Where there's a will, there's a way. I suppose there is just no desire for some of these folks to move!

Not that it makes much difference, but I typically walk about 10 to 15 miles a day at work. I'm hardly ever in my office, that's one reason I don't post many links, cause I'm always walking around and using my phone. Like right now!!


----------



## Patchouli

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Last and security should be a break even... provided they havent trashed their current residence.... (rare in my experience) and first month rent is just one more rent payment whether they move or not. As to moving expense..... put your left foot in front of your right foot, then put your right foot in front of your left foot. Repeat as needed to get where you are going. That is a tried and true method proven effective over centuries of use.


The last place we rented we left spotlessly clean, it was in better condition than when we moved in. We did not get our deposit back because the landlord claimed he had to call in a plumber to clear out the drain in the bath tub to clean out the dog hair in it. I had never given my dog a bath in the tub. Every landlord we ever had came up with one excuse or another to keep our deposit and we always maintained the house and the yard and cleaned from top to bottom when we left.


----------



## no really

Patchouli said:


> And how does one relocate with no money or transportation?


I know several families that have done exactly that. A few that walked quite a distance through Mexico with their families and nothing more than what they could carry on their backs. They had some dangerous, difficult times but they made it and built pretty good lives, including becoming citizens. OnE of my neighbors escaped Iran with his family when the Shah was overthrown. Took them two years of working every job they could in Europe to finally make to the states, broke but happy.


----------



## Patchouli

no really said:


> I know several families that have done exactly that. A few that walked quite a distance through Mexico with their families and nothing more than what they could carry on their backs. They had some dangerous, difficult times but they made it and built pretty good lives, including becoming citizens. OnE of my neighbors escaped Iran with his family when the Shah was overthrown. Took them two years of working every job they could in Europe to finally make to the states, broke but happy.


You do have a point here. I would guess they probably had family or a group of fellow refugees who helped them get established here.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> I tend to agree with wr. It earns the person being insulted some sympathy points and also degrades any position the insulter takes. It's kind of hard to take someone's political perspective serious when they lob insults like a 6th grader.


Nonsense. It is possible to object to name calling as rudeness and still agree an idiot is an idiot. Just because an insult is couched in more words, say like above, does not mean it is not low, mean and wrong. It's just smarmy instead of crude.


----------



## no really

Patchouli said:


> You do have a point here. I would guess they probably had family or a group of fellow refugees who helped them get established here.


The Iranian family escaped with a small group but they split up immediately for fear of being easy targets, how they ended up in middle of nowhere Texas is a mystery. The Mexican families just pretty much group together sharing expenses and watching each other's backs till they get established. They have a drive to survive.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There arent many grocery stores or jobs on the north pole..... and not many folks choose to live there as a result. If one cant make a living where they are and cant feed their kids because of it they really should move!


But there is nature's food store right there.
Whale,bear,seal,fish
Boo, berries preserved in animal oil.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> Nonsense. It is possible to object to name calling as rudeness and still agree an idiot is an idiot. Just because an insult is couched in more words, say like above, does not mean it is not low, mean and wrong. It's just smarmy instead of crude.


We were talking about the undecided not the people already in your camp.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> You do have a point here. I would guess they probably had family or a group of fellow refugees who helped them get established here.


Sheesh- do you think that no one can do anything by their own effort? I guess having that idea would close worlds of opportunity available to those who are not so limited. No wonder you believe that so many are incapable of improvement without government assistance.
I personally took a job offer, moving myself across country all by myself, to a place I had never even seen and knew no one because it sounded like a good chance. I travelled to Europe with a University group, decided their agenda wasn't mine and took off to travel all by myself, which was a very interesting experience.
And I consider myself one of the more timid members of my family. Some others have had adventures that far exceed anything I ever did in terms of risk all by themselves. And found opportunity, having just gone looking.


----------



## po boy

Patchouli said:


> You do have a point here. I would guess they probably had family or a group of fellow refugees who helped them get established here.


That's a novel concept. Family or folks in similar situations helping each other out.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> We were talking about the undecided not the people already in your camp.


You might have meant that,but even then I doubt it. There is as good a chance of hearing someone called a name might decide that was correct assessment.


----------



## kasilofhome

Patch.... so without help no one can do anything to improve their situation thru their own effort.

My car is dead... I live rural...but I have two feet and smile with each mile because I am solving the issues as the come up. My son has learnt this and is capable to deal with live seem far better able than those who are self reliant challenged.... a soon to be new desirability. :stars: p


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Patch.... so without help no one can do anything to improve their situation thru their own effort.
> 
> My car is dead... I live rural...but I have two feet and smile with each mile because I am solving the issues as the come up. My son has learnt this and is capable to deal with live seem far better able than those who are self reliant challenged.... a soon to be new desirability. :stars: p


I thought you were the quintessential example of not doing it on your own. Community and government both pulled you out of your hole.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> The last place we rented we left spotlessly clean, it was in better condition than when we moved in. We did not get our deposit back because the landlord claimed he had to call in a plumber to clear out the drain in the bath tub to clean out the dog hair in it. I had never given my dog a bath in the tub. *Every landlord we ever had came up with one excuse or another to keep our deposit *and we always maintained the house and the yard and cleaned from top to bottom when we left.


My standard "excuse" as a landlord is simple math.... I usually charge a 3 to 5 hundred dollar deposit which I have always ended up keeping. It helps with the 4 or 5 thousand dollars it costs me to put a house back in livable shape after they finally leave owing me 2 to 5 months rent. (the legal process for eviction takes a good while here) The last place I had to clean up and repair set me back a bit over 12K.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> And how does one relocate with no money or transportation?


Same way hundreds of thousands did it during our nations westward expansion..... right foot goes in front of left foot.. then left foot in front of right foot... repeat as needed to get where you are going.


----------



## po boy

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Same way hundreds of thousands did it during our nations westward expansion..... right foot goes in front of left foot.. then left foot in front of right foot... repeat as needed to get where you are going.


Yea, what if they had only one leg


----------



## Evons hubby

po boy said:


> Yea, what if they had only one leg


Good question... if you are ever in the area of where US 30 west crosses over into Idaho you might want check out the historical marker there. Seems there was one of the early travelers injured his leg, gangrene was setting in and he was out there alone. In order to save himself he cut off his own leg. That sorta left him where he was.... The old boy put together a ferry across a nearby stream and charged folks traveling on the Oregon trail to use his ferry.... thats how he made his living from that point on. Like I said earlier... there are those that will find a way... and those who will come up with excuses.


----------



## SLFarmMI

no really said:


> Just curious about the area. No cars in the area ok, is there public transportation? Do these people all work in the immediate area? Do they ever venture out?


There is a bus and that is what they generally take to work. You are limited in what you can bring on the bus in terms of volume. It's not really possible to bring a week's worth of groceries for the family on the bus, even if you could carry it all. Regarding your question on venturing out -- it is not unusual for the local kids to never have been farther than a mile from their homes. Sad, but true. Most people stay in the area.


----------



## no really

SLFarmMI said:


> There is a bus and that is what they generally take to work. You are limited in what you can bring on the bus in terms of volume. It's not really possible to bring a week's worth of groceries for the family on the bus, even if you could carry it all. Regarding your question on venturing out -- it is not unusual for the local kids to never have been farther than a mile from their homes. Sad, but true. Most people stay in the area.


Wow and I thought our area was isolated.


----------



## po boy

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Good question... if you are ever in the area of where US 30 west crosses over into Idaho you might want check out the historical marker there. Seems there was one of the early travelers injured his leg, gangrene was setting in and he was out there alone. In order to save himself he cut off his own leg. That sorta left him where he was.... The old boy put together a ferry across a nearby stream and charged folks traveling on the Oregon trail to use his ferry.... thats how he made his living from that point on. Like I said earlier... there are those that will find a way... *and those who will come up with excuses*.


And those that will do that for them.


----------



## where I want to

no really said:


> Wow and I thought our area was isolated.


No bus off the major highways here but it is not unusual to see one person with a car bringing in 3 or 4 with them for shopping in town. I'm surprised the local school does not do field trips for these kids.


----------



## arabian knight

I sure am one of the lucky ones when it comes to renting. YEAH

I have been here going on 19 years. No deposit was ever collected, No lease was every signed. I have no specific date to pay the rent, but now That I am retired on SS I pay the first of the month. 
If I do some repairs I get reimbursed IF I ASK FOR IT that is., Many many times I just fix things up and keep going.
The rent has NEVER been raised by my landlord. I HAVE DONE IT MYSELF when I feel he should get more as I have been a landlord myself. LOL

I sure could have said hey the frog doesn't work I need another one, and he would have had to get me one. NOPE. I wanted a new one and bought myself and never asked for any reimbursement. Needed a new air even though he said he had one I could use, NOPE I went a got a better one and a bigger one at MY Expense~

But those huge repairs I don;t do like last fall I needed a New pump~
He called a well guy and pulled the old one out and put in a new one.
And also 2 years ago the water heater started to leak. He sure had to replace with a new one and did.

So he does do major fix ups. But I do the small ones. LOL
Course I have used some land of his back into the woods to have my mini horses in cleared some trees out he said nothing.

I have a Great Landlord. I think of him as a friend, as I used to work on his dads tractors back in the early 70's when I was working a service station.
As this is a working dairy farm with his kids managing a huge hog barn 1/2 mile down the road. Just put it up last year. And now over 8K and or more with the little ones that are being born now every few months. LOL


----------



## SLFarmMI

no really said:


> Wow and I thought our area was isolated.


Not isolated at all. Urban actually. But when you have limited funds and no car, you aren't going to be able to provide your children the same variety of experiences as someone who has a car and more funds.


----------



## SLFarmMI

where I want to said:


> No bus off the major highways here but it is not unusual to see one person with a car bringing in 3 or 4 with them for shopping in town. I'm surprised the local school does not do field trips for these kids.


Field trips have become increasingly expensive for schools. We now have to pay for the school bus if we want to go on a field trip. $45 per hour with a minimum of 2 hours. Previously the school district would cover the cost, but not any more. This is in addition to the cost of the field trip itself -- admission costs, etc. This is why so many teachers are turning to technology and doing virtual field trips.


----------



## no really

SLFarmMI said:


> Not isolated at all. Urban actually. But when you have limited funds and no car, you aren't going to be able to provide your children the same variety of experiences as someone who has a car and more funds.


Different experiences not necessarily worse. The little town closest to us have lots of activities for kids and adults, most are free. Average income is around 24,000. In this county. No grocery store, hospital or doctor here and this is the county seat, oh there is a clinic with a PA twice a week. No public transportation at all. Sixty miles to a bus station. But most people seem pretty happy.


----------



## AmericanStand

7thswan said:


> Maybe he was honest. Arround here, strip clubs, liquor stores, gambleing joints ect. all take them. Not to mention they are traded for cash, 10 dollars to 1.


 What are you doing about it ?


----------



## po boy

AmericanStand said:


> What are you doing about it ?


???? Shoot them?


----------



## AmericanStand

po boy said:


> ???? Shoot them?



Really you have shot someone for snap abuse ? That's passion !


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> Sheesh- do you think that no one can do anything by their own effort? I guess having that idea would close worlds of opportunity available to those who are not so limited. No wonder you believe that so many are incapable of improvement without government assistance.
> I personally took a job offer, moving myself across country all by myself, to a place I had never even seen and knew no one because it sounded like a good chance. I travelled to Europe with a University group, decided their agenda wasn't mine and took off to travel all by myself, which was a very interesting experience.
> And I consider myself one of the more timid members of my family. Some others have had adventures that far exceed anything I ever did in terms of risk all by themselves. And found opportunity, having just gone looking.


You are an American citizen. Generally people who come here from foreign countries get help from others from their country, family members or American sponsors. 

Maybe instead of trying to turn everything into a way to attack me you could try doing a little research.


----------



## po boy

AmericanStand said:


> Really you have shot someone for snap abuse ? That's passion !


In response to you asking what Swan was going to do about SNAP abuse.
What do you think Swan should do about it?


----------



## mmoetc

po boy said:


> In response to you asking what Swan was going to do about SNAP abuse.
> What do you think Swan should do about it?


What every responsible citizen should do when they have evidence that a crime is being committed. Report said crime to the proper authorities. Just think, if she knows that a parent is selling her snap benefits for drug money and not feeding her kid and reports it the mother should get arrested. This arrest would allow the authorities to put her behind bars and remove her children to the foster care system making Y's hubby happier. A win - win.


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> Yes, they are but the fault does not reside with them for it's existence. The fault resides with those who support more and more welfare, which actually is a double strike as people on welfare do not generally pay income taxes. The ever dwindling non-welfare workers carry more and more of that burden.
> But the harm to the public from welfare is not restricted to suppressed wages and actual outgo of benefits bit must also pay for an army of government employees, lobbyists, grant writers, advocates, social workers, etc to manage it all. It's a geometrically 8increasing burden.


Cause, no. Benefit and perpetuate, yes. You can continue to be angry at the poor in your black and white world. (No,TG, no racism implied) I'll live in my gray world where responsible parents do what they can to feed their children, including accessing government and private programs, bad parents do exist and always will, and business does what business does, try to find a way to maximize profit from the systems in place and do what they can to make sure those systems benefit them.

To the OP. Thanks for your caring and support. I'll continue to donate to our local food bank and follow in my parent's footsteps and drop the occasional box of food on the doorstep of someone who needs a little help.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> You are an American citizen. Generally people who come here from foreign countries get help from others from their country, family members or American sponsors.
> 
> Maybe instead of trying to turn everything into a way to attack me you could try doing a little research.


Just curious, how did she attack you? 
Strange thought IMHO, about those from foreign countries. Is that the way the vietnamese made it in the 70s? Or the Irish in the 1800s? Germans? How about Mexicans now? Or are you taking about ME? They definetly get funds from home...


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> What every responsible citizen should do when they have evidence that a crime is being committed. Report said crime to the proper authorities. Just think, if she knows that a parent is selling her snap benefits for drug money and not feeding her kid and reports it the mother should get arrested. This arrest would allow the authorities to put her behind bars and remove her children to the foster care system making Y's hubby happier. A win - win.


You're kidding, I see. B/c abuses are reported regularly to no avail. If this admin will not investigate the miriad of IRS abuses, the direct abuses toward particular groups, ya think they'll check into SNAP, 1 of the most pushed programs?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

> Generally people who come here from foreign countries get help from others from their country, family members or American sponsors.


I have been in the hospitality business over 30 years.
NOT ONE, no, NOT ONE Mexican man or woman I have worked with got 'money from 'home' " 
THEY were working 2-3 jobs and SENDING money home; living here off the welfare system.......so their expenses, rent, food, medical was paid BY ME and MY TAX DOLLARS while they worked and sent their money back home.

It has been my experience, that the Mexican community comes to America, attaches themselves to the Welfare system, and send THEIR money back to Mexico......

30 years of reality proves this.....


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I have been in the hospitality business over 30 years.
> NOT ONE, no, NOT ONE Mexican man or woman I have worked with got 'money from 'home' "
> THEY were working 2-3 jobs and SENDING money home; living here off the welfare system.......so their expenses, rent, food, medical was paid BY ME and MY TAX DOLLARS while they worked and sent their money back home.
> 
> It has been my experience, that the Mexican community comes to America, attaches themselves to the Welfare system, and send THEIR money back to Mexico......
> 
> 30 years of reality proves this.....


And how many phone calls to immigration authorities have you made in those 30 years to report these abuses? If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

mmoetc said:


> And how many phone calls to immigration authorities have you made in those 30 years to report these abuses? If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.


If I told you dozens? You would not believe me.
If I told you, none, you would belittle and berate me.

Forgive me if I do not participate in your exercise of the "no win" situation.


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> If I told you dozens? You would not believe me.
> If I told you, none, you would belittle and berate me.
> 
> Forgive me if I do not participate in your exercise of the "no win" situation.


If you told me dozens I would take you at your word. I might even commend you for doing the right thing. I'll dispute easily verifiable wrong facts but I'll not dismiss your own experience out of hand. I might counter with some of my own , like the time I reported bad paperwork and a good employee went away. Or the time I was asked to fill in at a restaurant that had most of it's kitchen staff walked out the back door by immigration. I also worked with many Guatamalans and Hondurans whose paperwork met the standards of the day and who lived in extended family and village groups while sending money home. Sometimes that money sent was to get the next brother or cousin north for a chance at a better life. I was once told I could curse like a guat. I took it as a compliment.

If you hold me none I might take it as another example of hypocracy. Do as I say, not as I do. In discussions like these there is often no winning or losing. Sometimes the realization that others have different experiences and different ways of dealing with issues is enough. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine. But it's enlightening, sometimes fun and often frustrating to see how others think.


----------



## AmericanStand

Tricky Grama said:


> You're kidding, I see. B/c abuses are reported regularly to no avail. If this admin will not investigate the miriad of IRS abuses, the direct abuses toward particular groups, ya think they'll check into SNAP, 1 of the most pushed programs?



Do you have any proof about this ?
I don't think the admin would be responceable for investigating snap abuse. 

I have a good friend who was investigated by the FBI for food stamp fraud. She was intimidated into pleading guilty to attempting to defraud the government. 
She was turned in by her social worker , the evidence was her statements on her application. Apparently according to the statements she made she didn't qualify for them. But rather than turn her down they gave them to her for a year then prosecuted her for fraud. 
I guess she was supposed to be a expert on the program. 
Interestingly her husband who signed the same form and was also investigated told the FBI to buzz off and was never even served papers.


----------



## AmericanStand

mmoetc said:


> But it's enlightening, sometimes fun and often frustrating to see how others think.



Hallelujah !


----------



## no really

AmericanStand said:


> Do you have any proof about this ?
> I don't think the admin would be responceable for investigating snap abuse.
> 
> I have a good friend who was investigated by the FBI for food stamp fraud. She was intimidated into pleading guilty to attempting to defraud the government.
> She was turned in by her social worker , the evidence was her statements on her application. Apparently according to the statements she made she didn't qualify for them. But rather than turn her down they gave them to her for a year then prosecuted her for fraud.
> I guess she was supposed to be a expert on the program.
> Interestingly her husband who signed the same form and was also investigated told the FBI to buzz off and was never even served papers.


Don't quite understand the point you are trying to make, but what it says to me is the program from top to bottom is dysfunctional.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> And how many phone calls to immigration authorities have you made in those 30 years to report these abuses? If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.


IF you can get thru to immigration, IF you do report it...know what they say? "BWhahaha"!
Plus, it's no crime to send $$ home, if you're here legally. Not sure about illegals-nothing is done about them. They get drivers' licenses, ER care, SNAP, obummerUncare.


----------



## mmoetc

no really said:


> Don't quite understand the point you are trying to make, but what it says to me is the program from top to bottom is dysfunctional.


According to the GAO fraud in the SNAP programs runs about 4% . Something needs to be done and done now about this rampant abuse! Now that national security is solved I urge the congress to turn their attention here. But please don't touch medicare and Medicaid where fraud runs 10% . http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/food-stamp-fraud-in-the-underground-economy.html?referrer=


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> If you told me dozens I would take you at your word. I might even commend you for doing the right thing. I'll dispute easily verifiable wrong facts but I'll not dismiss your own experience out of hand. I might counter with some of my own , like the time I reported bad paperwork and a good employee went away. Or the time I was asked to fill in at a restaurant that had most of it's kitchen staff walked out the back door by immigration. I also worked with many Guatamalans and Hondurans whose paperwork met the standards of the day and who lived in extended family and village groups while sending money home. Sometimes that money sent was to get the next brother or cousin north for a chance at a better life. I was once told I could curse like a guat. I took it as a compliment.
> 
> If you hold me none I might take it as another example of hypocracy. Do as I say, not as I do. In discussions like these there is often no winning or losing. Sometimes the realization that others have different experiences and different ways of dealing with issues is enough. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine. But it's enlightening, sometimes fun and often frustrating to see how others think.


So, you agree, $$ is sent home, not the other way around?
BTW, is it against the law to send $$ home?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> So, you agree, $$ is sent home, not the other way around?
> BTW, is it against the law to send $$ home?


Why would it be a problem to send money home?


----------



## Tricky Grama

AmericanStand said:


> Do you have any proof about this ?
> I don't think the admin would be responceable for investigating snap abuse.
> 
> I have a good friend who was investigated by the FBI for food stamp fraud. She was intimidated into pleading guilty to attempting to defraud the government.
> She was turned in by her social worker , the evidence was her statements on her application. Apparently according to the statements she made she didn't qualify for them. But rather than turn her down they gave them to her for a year then prosecuted her for fraud.
> I guess she was supposed to be a expert on the program.
> Interestingly her husband who signed the same form and was also investigated told the FBI to buzz off and was never even served papers.


There's certainly evidence that this admin is doing nada about the IRS. I have only my congresscritters' allegations that SNAP violations are reported regularly w/o consequenses.
Your example was a social worker seeing it 1st hand. So, 1 down millions to go.


----------



## no really

mmoetc said:


> According to the GAO fraud in the SNAP programs runs about 4% . Something needs to be done and done now about this rampant abuse! Now that national security is solved I urge the congress to turn their attention here. But please don't touch medicare and Medicaid where fraud runs 10% . http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/food-stamp-fraud-in-the-underground-economy.html?referrer=


All fraud should be investigated from the fraud committed by gov officials all the way down through the programs. Do I feel comfortable with gov numbers not particularly. Those numbers are formulated to keep things flowing from lobby favorites to businesses to prospective voters. It seems to be a very lucrative circle. IMHO


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Why would it be a problem to send money home?


Dunno, T'was posted a page back. Ask them.
But it sure doesn't help OUR economy.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> So, you agree, $$ is sent home, not the other way around?
> BTW, is it against the law to send $$ home?


No, I think I was pretty clear. Money was sent home. It was often sent home to get the next person here, just as many immigrant families made their way here over the years. The contention I was disputing was that no immigrants benefited from family or friends already here. 

If it's against the law to send money home Western Union, walmart and a whole lot of banks facilitate illegal activity every day. These folks aren't putting cash in envelopes and trusting Mexican or central American postal officials.


----------



## Patchouli

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I have been in the hospitality business over 30 years.
> NOT ONE, no, NOT ONE Mexican man or woman I have worked with got 'money from 'home' "
> THEY were working 2-3 jobs and SENDING money home; living here off the welfare system.......so their expenses, rent, food, medical was paid BY ME and MY TAX DOLLARS while they worked and sent their money back home.
> 
> It has been my experience, that the Mexican community comes to America, attaches themselves to the Welfare system, and send THEIR money back to Mexico......
> 
> 30 years of reality proves this.....


I should have stated that more plainly: they get help from people from their country who currently reside in America. I forget that the original post things are based on gets lost along the way.


----------



## AmericanStand

Tricky Grama said:


> There's certainly evidence that this admin is doing nada about the IRS. I have only my congresscritters' allegations that SNAP violations are reported regularly w/o consequenses.
> 
> Your example was a social worker seeing it 1st hand. So, 1 down millions to go.



I can't see what the IRS has to do with snap ? 
My example was a case of the social worker creating fraud and the FBI intimidating the innocent to create a conviction.


----------



## where I want to

Fraud in welfare programs is rarely prosecuted unless massive in scale. There are some indiviual cases bureaucratically determined to be overpayments and repayment requested, usually triggered by a written complaint, but no one is charged criminally. And even those individual cases are frequently dismissed if appealed. 
Casual fraud is so common as to be too expensive to pursue. An agency I worked for had a $100,000 rule- the gov't attorneys did not even accept a case to review, even if completely proven, blatant or not, for prosecution unless the fraud was over that amount. A government worker being involved was another story- any amount would lead to action.
And that should be a consideration in writing laws and regulations- the ease of abuse. Don't think that word of easy fraud isn't passed around. One recipient tells a relative about how easy it is to do something and the word is soon all over. Even organized by government granted advocates.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Fraud in welfare programs is rarely prosecuted unless massive in scale. There are some indiviual cases bureaucratically determined to be overpayments and repayment requested, usually triggered by a written complaint, but no one is charged criminally.


Octomom was charged criminally, and was convicted (no contest plea).


----------



## AmericanStand

From time to time the government prosecuted a bunch of fraud cases at once. 
I think that's what my friend was caught up in. 
It makes good TV "29 welfare Queens convicted of fraud" and it's supposed to help scare others into obeying. But it destroys lives for political gain and it makes people think that they could be convicting 28 people everyday.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> From time to time the government prosecuted a bunch of fraud cases at once.
> I think that's what my friend was caught up in.
> It makes good TV "29 welfare Queens convicted of fraud" and it's supposed to help scare others into obeying. But it destroys lives for political gain and it makes people think that they could be convicting 28 people everyday.


Heaven forbid that people committing fraud should have their lives ruined.


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> Heaven forbid that people committing fraud should have their lives ruined.



I think you are missing the point , if my friends case was typical the government manufactured the fraud. She did not set out to defraud the government.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> I think you are missing the point , if my friends case was typical the government manufactured the fraud. She did not set out to defraud the government.


Ri-i-ight. Fraud by definition includes proving intent.


----------



## MO_cows

mmoetc said:


> According to the GAO fraud in the SNAP programs runs about 4% . Something needs to be done and done now about this rampant abuse! Now that national security is solved I urge the congress to turn their attention here. But please don't touch medicare and Medicaid where fraud runs 10% . http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/food-stamp-fraud-in-the-underground-economy.html?referrer=


I bet the GAO defines "fraud" a bit differently than you or I would. If SNAP is issued to person A and they sell it to person B for cents on the dollar and get caught, that's their 4% fraud. Or a grocer charges the SNAP card and gives the person back cash, that's probably in their fraud detection. 

But there are all kinds of other fraud they will never catch, or never act on. Such as, the person doesn't really need the benefit and they show this by buying luxury items with it, eating like a wealthy person on the taxpayer's dime. That's fraud to me, but I bet it doesn't show up on GAO's radar. I bet you could buy steak and lobster every month when the bennies recharge and no one would ever say boo. 

Then there is the person has a live in boyfriend/girlfriend with income that wasn't reported on the SNAP application. I know a waste of oxygen who pulled that off for years, her SO was an auto worker and made good money but she still milked all her benefits. (Yes, it was reported, no, nothing was done.) 

My DSIL used to work for a discount retailer, and she had a few "regulars" who would come in and buy expensive baby formula when their bennies renewed, then return it for a cash refund the next day. Apparently you can't put credit back on the SNAP card. So that's how these SNAP recipients turned them into drinkin' money. And baby formula could not be re-stocked, it had to be discarded. So the store lost money as well as the taxpayers. And what could you really do about it? Refuse to sell someone formula? Refuse a return with a valid receipt? 

And then there was the well publicized million dollar lottery winner who kept on taking SNAP benefits. 

The whole program has gone out of control. That 4% fraud rate is a joke.


----------



## where I want to

MO_cows said:


> I bet the GAO defines "fraud" a bit differently than you or I would. If SNAP is issued to person A and they sell it to person B for cents on the dollar and get caught, that's their 4% fraud. Or a grocer charges the SNAP card and gives the person back cash, that's probably in their fraud detection.
> 
> But there are all kinds of other fraud they will never catch, or never act on. Such as, the person doesn't really need the benefit and they show this by buying luxury items with it, eating like a wealthy person on the taxpayer's dime. That's fraud to me, but I bet it doesn't show up on GAO's radar. I bet you could buy steak and lobster every month when the bennies recharge and no one would ever say boo.
> 
> Then there is the person has a live in boyfriend/girlfriend with income that wasn't reported on the SNAP application. I know a waste of oxygen who pulled that off for years, her SO was an auto worker and made good money but she still milked all her benefits. (Yes, it was reported, no, nothing was done.)
> 
> My DSIL used to work for a discount retailer, and she had a few "regulars" who would come in and buy expensive baby formula when their bennies renewed, then return it for a cash refund the next day. Apparently you can't put credit back on the SNAP card. So that's how these SNAP recipients turned them into drinkin' money. And baby formula could not be re-stocked, it had to be discarded. So the store lost money as well as the taxpayers. And what could you really do about it? Refuse to sell someone formula? Refuse a return with a valid receipt?
> 
> And then there was the well publicized million dollar lottery winner who kept on taking SNAP benefits.
> 
> The whole program has gone out of control. That 4% fraud rate is a joke.


Fraud is difficult to prove because it requires proving intent. On an individual level that is much harder than proving it in an organized business like way.
The way the fraud is done when organized is pretty clear but if an indivual just fails to report income, well, they just misunderstood, didn't they- no intent at all.


----------



## kasilofhome

AmericanStand said:


> I think you are missing the point , if my friends case was typical the government manufactured the fraud. She did not set out to defraud the government.


Limited information was given by you.... one sided... it was vetted and you claim she just caved... lack of information turns it into a moot point. I understand that you may know more. Did you personally help your friend at the time?


----------



## kasilofhome

where I want to said:


> Fraud is difficult to prove because it requires proving intent. On an individual level that is much harder than proving it in an organized business like way.
> The way the fraud is done when organized is pretty clear but if an indivual just fails to report income, well, they just misunderstood, didn't they- no intent at all.


Fyi you can as a clerk I did this... it is a pain in the butt and it takes a few days to return to the card..


----------



## where I want to

kasilofhome said:


> Fyi you can as a cleric I did this... it is a pain in the butt and it takes a few days to return to the card..


??????? Don't understand.


----------



## painterswife

That is right, complain, complain , complain and then complain again when it is suggested you should be part of the solution.


----------



## AmericanStand

kasilofhome said:


> Limited information was given by you.... one sided... it was vetted and you claim she just caved... lack of information turns it into a moot point. I understand that you may know more. Did you personally help your friend at the time?



I am close friends with the husband. 
Filling out a application isn't fraud , that's why you have applications to see if someone qualifies. 
Lying on the application would be. But they didn't and never were accused of it.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> I am close friends with the husband.
> Filling out a application isn't fraud , that's why you have applications to see if someone qualifies.
> Lying on the application would be. But they didn't and never were accused of it.


Ri-i-ight. I doubt filling out an application is the whole story. Might be fraud because the applications gave requirement that needed to be reported that they subsequently didn't. That is the most common fraud- not reporting .


----------



## kasilofhome

AmericanStand said:


> I am close friends with the husband.
> Filling out a application isn't fraud , that's why you have applications to see if someone qualifies.
> Lying on the application would be. But they didn't and never were accused of it.




It certainly can be... false info....


----------



## kasilofhome

where I want to said:


> ??????? Don't understand.


It should have been attached to Mo. Who stated refunding baby formula for cash refunds to the snap card are what is to be done there is a way....it takes a few minutes and the snap card has the money value add back in a few days... people complain but that is life refunds to credit cards and debit cards take a few day that's life even for those on snap. And this should be how all snap cards are done notice of this was a fed doc. At fred meyers cashiers had to sign that they understood not cash refunds for snap and that they were trained to preform the properrefunding to the snap card.


----------



## where I want to

kasilofhome said:


> It should have been attached to Mo. Who stated refunding baby formula for cash refunds to the snap card are what is to be done there is a way....it takes a few minutes and the snap card has the money value add back in a few days... people complain but that is life refunds to credit cards and debit cards take a few day that's life even for those on snap. And this should be how all snap cards are done notice of this was a fed doc. At fred meyers cashiers had to sign that they understood not cash refunds for snap and that they were trained to preform the properrefunding to the snap card.


Thanks I simple couldn't figure out what you were saying.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Octomom was charged criminally, and was convicted (no contest plea).


Didn't she flaunt that fact all over the media? They had no choice because she made the government look bad, they had to respond.


----------



## JeffreyD

MO_cows said:


> I bet the GAO defines "fraud" a bit differently than you or I would. If SNAP is issued to person A and they sell it to person B for cents on the dollar and get caught, that's their 4% fraud. Or a grocer charges the SNAP card and gives the person back cash, that's probably in their fraud detection.
> 
> But there are all kinds of other fraud they will never catch, or never act on. Such as, the person doesn't really need the benefit and they show this by buying luxury items with it, eating like a wealthy person on the taxpayer's dime. That's fraud to me, but I bet it doesn't show up on GAO's radar. I bet you could buy steak and lobster every month when the bennies recharge and no one would ever say boo.
> 
> Then there is the person has a live in boyfriend/girlfriend with income that wasn't reported on the SNAP application. I know a waste of oxygen who pulled that off for years, her SO was an auto worker and made good money but she still milked all her benefits. (Yes, it was reported, no, nothing was done.)
> 
> My DSIL used to work for a discount retailer, and she had a few "regulars" who would come in and buy expensive baby formula when their bennies renewed, then return it for a cash refund the next day. Apparently you can't put credit back on the SNAP card. So that's how these SNAP recipients turned them into drinkin' money. And baby formula could not be re-stocked, it had to be discarded. So the store lost money as well as the taxpayers. And what could you really do about it? Refuse to sell someone formula? Refuse a return with a valid receipt?
> 
> And then there was the well publicized million dollar lottery winner who kept on taking SNAP benefits.
> 
> The whole program has gone out of control. That 4% fraud rate is a joke.


There was some surfer dude that lived in Venice California who was on the news because he would make a couple of hundred bucks panhandling on the boardwalk, and use his snap benefits to buy lobster and crab. These types of incidents are far more common than were led to believe.


----------



## MO_cows

JeffreyD said:


> There was some surfer dude that lived in Venice California who was on the news because he would make a couple of hundred bucks panhandling on the boardwalk, and use his snap benefits to buy lobster and crab. These types of incidents are far more common than were led to believe.


I think I saw that on 60 minutes or one of those type shows. He would throw a party and feed his friends that high dollar food once a month or something. Made me want to start a "shark welfare" program and feed him to a great white. Sharks gotta eat too.


----------



## po boy

AmericanStand said:


> Do you have any proof about this ?
> I don't think the admin would be responceable for investigating snap abuse.
> 
> I have a good friend who was investigated by the FBI for food stamp fraud. She was intimidated into pleading guilty to attempting to defraud the government.
> She was turned in by her social worker , the evidence was her statements on her application. Apparently according to the statements she made she didn't qualify for them. But rather than turn her down they gave them to her for a year then prosecuted her for fraud.
> I guess she was supposed to be a expert on the program.
> Interestingly her husband who signed the same form and was also investigated told the FBI to buzz off and was never even served papers.


That does not make sense. No way that would stand up in court.


----------



## po boy

JeffreyD said:


> Didn't she flaunt that fact all over the media? They had no choice because she made the government look bad, they had to respond.


The government looks bad without any one's help!


----------



## Tricky Grama

AmericanStand said:


> Do you have any proof about this ?
> I don't think the admin would be responceable for investigating snap abuse.
> 
> I have a good friend who was investigated by the FBI for food stamp fraud. She was intimidated into pleading guilty to attempting to defraud the government.
> She was turned in by her social worker , the evidence was her statements on her application. Apparently according to the statements she made she didn't qualify for them. But rather than turn her down they gave them to her for a year then prosecuted her for fraud.
> I guess she was supposed to be a expert on the program.
> Interestingly her husband who signed the same form and was also investigated told the FBI to buzz off and was never even served papers.


So who does the social worker work for? Would that be GE? Maybe microsoft...I was under the impression this administration included fed workers. All of 'em. People who work for the state...Any gov't worker. ICE.


----------



## Tricky Grama

AmericanStand said:


> I can't see what the IRS has to do with snap ?
> My example was a case of the social worker creating fraud and the FBI intimidating the innocent to create a conviction.


You didn't make it clear that the person was innocent 
I mentioned the IRS to show there's corruption all thru. The Office of Budget, IRS, SNAP, Immigration, VA, FBI...


----------



## Tricky Grama

MO_cows said:


> I bet the GAO defines "fraud" a bit differently than you or I would. If SNAP is issued to person A and they sell it to person B for cents on the dollar and get caught, that's their 4% fraud. Or a grocer charges the SNAP card and gives the person back cash, that's probably in their fraud detection.
> 
> But there are all kinds of other fraud they will never catch, or never act on. Such as, the person doesn't really need the benefit and they show this by buying luxury items with it, eating like a wealthy person on the taxpayer's dime. That's fraud to me, but I bet it doesn't show up on GAO's radar. I bet you could buy steak and lobster every month when the bennies recharge and no one would ever say boo.
> 
> Then there is the person has a live in boyfriend/girlfriend with income that wasn't reported on the SNAP application. I know a waste of oxygen who pulled that off for years, her SO was an auto worker and made good money but she still milked all her benefits. (Yes, it was reported, no, nothing was done.)
> 
> My DSIL used to work for a discount retailer, and she had a few "regulars" who would come in and buy expensive baby formula when their bennies renewed, then return it for a cash refund the next day. Apparently you can't put credit back on the SNAP card. So that's how these SNAP recipients turned them into drinkin' money. And baby formula could not be re-stocked, it had to be discarded. So the store lost money as well as the taxpayers. And what could you really do about it? Refuse to sell someone formula? Refuse a return with a valid receipt?
> 
> And then there was the well publicized million dollar lottery winner who kept on taking SNAP benefits.
> 
> The whole program has gone out of control. That 4% fraud rate is a joke.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## AmericanStand

I thought I was pretty clear based only on information on the application the FBI said they were not qualified to get the benefits and intimidated the wife into pleading guilty to fraud. 
The husband refused and wasn't charged. 
That should tell you it wasn't a square deal. 
Even the judge seemed confused by the case. He asked why the husband wasn't charged with his wife and was told that it was a separate investigation , but not that the husband wasn't charged. 
I can't speack for for the details of all the cases but I did hear from two of the other defendants that their " fraud" was to use two different SS numbers for one of their kids, they did that by being short a digit. 
Heinous crimes huh ?


----------



## Michael W. Smith

Wow, talk about thread drift. How did we get here when we initially were talking about hungry children?

Back when I went to school - some 30 plus years ago - the poor kids were able to get lunch - it was called "Free or reduced" lunch. I was actually one of them - on the reduced part. But that was the ONLY thing that was served - lunch. You got off the bus and you went straight to your classroom.

While there is still "Free and reduced" lunches, it's gotten to the point where no one knows who gets a free or reduced lunch. At some point, apparently the free and reduced lunch crowd felt they were be being targeted - so now no students in school actually knows who gets free or reduced - but they can still pretty much guess.

But now somewhere along the line, it came to the attention of the powers that be, that there are so many children coming to school that haven't eaten breakfast, that breakfast is now being served. 

While I don't have a problem with it, the thing is the schools are PUSHING for EVERY kid to eat breakfast at school. Apparently parents nowadays are either too lazy (or at work) to fix their kids breakfast - and apparently kids are so stupid that they can't fix their own breakfast.

While my Mother did not cook me eggs and bacon for breakfast, when I was younger I remember her fixing me Cream of Wheat. But as I got older (but still in elementary school) I was able to pour my own cereal and pour my own milk - and eat it, and put the dish and spoon in the sink. (Apparently nowadays kids can't do that.)

Somewhere along mid high school, I quit eating breakfast altogether. Lunch was usually served around 11:00, so I was never "starving" before I ate my lunch.

While I KNOW there are hungry kids out there - I don't think it's as many as what we are lead to believe. And for whatever reason, the government (and schools) are actually PUSHING for all kids to eat breakfast as well as lunch.

I guess for the stay at home Mom's, many of them will now just let their kid buy breakfast - after all it's provided and it's there, so why should she "bother" to make the effort?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not going to force you to do anything. Ever. I promise.


I'm being forced to pay for something which the government does not have the constitutional right nor power to do and if you support that action you ARE part of the group which is forcing me. 

If you can show me where in the constitution the government is granted the power to take money from one individual and give it directly to another I'll admit I'm wrong. Or if you can show me where the government is granted the power to give money to an individual which is not or has not provided a good or service to it in exchange for that money I'll admit I'm wrong.

Otherwise you have to admit that the government doesn't have that right/power and is clearly violating the constitution. Only a fool can say that providing something which is ONLY useful to the individual it is given to is providing for the general welfare. Its like saying if the government builds a 'road' from the main highway to my house and I'm the one who controls access to it then its OK because building roads is one of the things which is for the general welfare.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't focus on charity rather than self reliance, I focus on kids, specifically hungry kids.
> 
> We've danced this so often I can anticipate your next move... don't dip me.


Forgive the lack of focus in the post. I'm very short on sleep because I've been working a lot of hours so I can earn enough money to feed my family and all the parasites who are living off of me.

Why are the kids hungry? After all the BILLIONS spent on fixing this problem over the last decades why do we still have it? Could it be because those in charge don't really want to fix it but want to just give those kids food to hook them on the drug of government dependence?

You will NEVER solve the problem by keep giving them meals any more than you will solve a drug user's problem by keep giving him drugs. 

If a parent has a kid and can't feed it then maybe they should not have that kid. I would think not providing proper food would be considered child abuse, don't you? 

I'll tell you something HUNGER IS A HUGE MOTIVATOR! I can tell you when you are hungry you will work at jobs you would NEVER consider if you have food in the house. How can I tell you that? Because I've been there and have the tee shirt as well as the scares to prove it. But I can tell you this. My kids NEVER went to be hungry because there wasn't enough food for them. They might have not really liked what was on the table but they had plenty of food to fill their bellies. And we NEVER took one dollar of charity from anyone.


----------



## watcher

plowjockey said:


> They sure do have the right.
> 
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/article-1-section-8.html



No they do not. What debt has some kid in school ran up to the federal government that it is paying back with the tax dollars to buy him lunch? 

If you try to use the common defense claim I think we would be much better off forcing them to do physical exercise than putting more food down their gullets. After the problem isn't that most people are too malnourished its that they are too fat and out of shape to defend the nation. 

As for the general welfare try how can you say that providing something which can be and is only used by an individual providing for the general welfare? If they wanted to build a private road to Bill Gate's house with tax dollars it would be constitutional? Just because it can be used by and only benefits Mr Gates its still a road and roads are something we all think are good for the general welfare, right?


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> Forgive the lack of focus in the post. I'm very short on sleep because I've been working a lot of hours so I can earn enough money to feed my family and all the parasites who are living off of me.
> 
> Why are the kids hungry? After all the BILLIONS spent on fixing this problem over the last decades why do we still have it? Could it be because those in charge don't really want to fix it but want to just give those kids food to hook them on the drug of government dependence?
> 
> You will NEVER solve the problem by keep giving them meals any more than you will solve a drug user's problem by keep giving him drugs.
> 
> If a parent has a kid and can't feed it then maybe they should not have that kid. I would think not providing proper food would be considered child abuse, don't you?
> 
> I'll tell you something HUNGER IS A HUGE MOTIVATOR! I can tell you when you are hungry you will work at jobs you would NEVER consider if you have food in the house. How can I tell you that? Because I've been there and have the tee shirt as well as the scares to prove it. But I can tell you this. My kids NEVER went to be hungry because there wasn't enough food for them. They might have not really liked what was on the table but they had plenty of food to fill their bellies. And we NEVER took one dollar of charity from anyone.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> Forgive the lack of focus in the post. I'm very short on sleep because I've been working a lot of hours so I can earn enough money to feed my family and all the parasites who are living off of me.
> 
> Why are the kids hungry? After all the BILLIONS spent on fixing this problem over the last decades why do we still have it? Could it be because those in charge don't really want to fix it but want to just give those kids food to hook them on the drug of government dependence?
> 
> You will NEVER solve the problem by keep giving them meals any more than you will solve a drug user's problem by keep giving him drugs.
> 
> If a parent has a kid and can't feed it then maybe they should not have that kid. I would think not providing proper food would be considered child abuse, don't you?
> 
> I'll tell you something HUNGER IS A HUGE MOTIVATOR! I can tell you when you are hungry you will work at jobs you would NEVER consider if you have food in the house. How can I tell you that? Because I've been there and have the tee shirt as well as the scares to prove it. But I can tell you this. My kids NEVER went to be hungry because there wasn't enough food for them. They might have not really liked what was on the table but they had plenty of food to fill their bellies. And we NEVER took one dollar of charity from anyone.


Yes, let's purposely have our poor people and children (do old people get a pass?) go hungry to try to motivate them to get a job with no education or experience and in a crappy job market to boot. I'm sure that will work perfectly. 

We're a first world country, remember? 

Good for you that you were able to pull yourself up by the boot straps! Do you honestly think that everyone can do that? 

Further, how do you suggest getting them off the dole without hunger or homelessness? No fantasy crap like, "send 'em off to jail!" "take their kids away!" or "let 'em get hungry!" cuz that just isn't the real world. People have rights, kids have rights, this is America after all.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> I'm being forced to pay for something which the government does not have the constitutional right nor power to do and if you support that action you ARE part of the group which is forcing me.
> 
> If you can show me where in the constitution the government is granted the power to take money from one individual and give it directly to another I'll admit I'm wrong. Or if you can show me where the government is granted the power to give money to an individual which is not or has not provided a good or service to it in exchange for that money I'll admit I'm wrong.
> 
> Otherwise you have to admit that the government doesn't have that right/power and is clearly violating the constitution. Only a fool can say that providing something which is ONLY useful to the individual it is given to is providing for the general welfare. Its like saying if the government builds a 'road' from the main highway to my house and I'm the one who controls access to it then its OK because building roads is one of the things which is for the general welfare.


Sigh. I'm not forcing you to do anything.


----------



## Oxankle

Pixie; you seem to be one of the do-gooders who are free with other people's money. Did it ever occur to you that the people on welfare could be out looking or ANY KIND of job that would supplement their welfare? No, they will not--so long as they can eke by on welfare they will not work. There is, in fact, a sizeable number who sit home and breed because they know their welfare check and housing allowance goes up. 

I say let them go to work or do without; if on welfare the M/W does not apply to them; they work at least 30 hours per week and show a paycheck or get no welfare.

If that were the law I'd hire a welfare client to do my landscaping for $5 per hour--that would encourage them to go find real work. 

Or the city could hire them at $2.50 per hour to clean ditches, or to sweep sidewalks, or work in the parks. The $2.50 plus the $17 per hour they get on welfare would support them well.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, let's purposely have our poor people and children (do old people get a pass?) go hungry to try to motivate them to get a job with no education or experience and in a crappy job market to boot. I'm sure that will work perfectly.


And your solution is to keep feeding them so they can be dependent on the government so it can become more and more powerful because people dependent on it will NEVER vote to reduce it? Or to keep them dependent so you can control them. You know "Do as we say or we might just cut your benefits." Or maybe you just want to keep them dependent because it makes you feel good or better than them because they need you.

You know the definition of insanity right? Keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. We have been doing the same thing for how long and we still have the same problem? Maybe its time we try something else?




Irish Pixie said:


> We're a first world country, remember?


Yeah I remember when we were a 1st world country. When we had the economy which was the envy of the world. When our education system was one of the best in the world. When our enemies feared us because of our economic and military might. When we had people who stood up for and did what was right even if it was hard. When people took responsibility for themselves instead of running around with their hands out demanding someone else give them something. 

All that is just a memory and we might still be an almost first world country now but for how long?




Irish Pixie said:


> Good for you that you were able to pull yourself up by the boot straps! Do you honestly think that everyone can do that?


Every one? Nope, some just don't have that ability. But I'm willing to say that 95+% of the people out there can and that other 5%+/- out there could be much better served by the private sector than the government. Those in the private sector CARE about those people are are truly trying to help them. I know because I've been involved in that area for a LONG time. Its counter productive for a government agency to solve a problem. After all if there's no problem all those government workers would not have jobs.




Irish Pixie said:


> Further, how do you suggest getting them off the dole without hunger or homelessness? No fantasy crap like, "send 'em off to jail!" "take their kids away!" or "let 'em get hungry!" cuz that just isn't the real world. People have rights, kids have rights, this is America after all.


I hate to shock you but you have no right to anything which must be provided to you by another. That means you have no right to housing, no right to food, no right to medical care and many other things people seem to think they have a right to. Because for you to have those things they must first be TAKEN from someone else.

My suggestion is this, wean them off. You start cutting all the unconstitutional government give-away programs by 5%/year across the board. You give tax breaks to private NPOs who can show that they are actually helping people go from dependence to independence.


----------



## Patchouli

Good grief people the OP is about DONATING FOOD not welfare or SNAP or any other government program.


----------



## Declan

Our school system is going to free lunches for everybody next year. They have been serving breakfast I think since the 70's.


----------



## TraderBob

Well, now that summer is here they are still serving breakfast and lunch at the school here to anyone who wants it. I've overheard a couple families talking about why should they spend money on food when they can get it free. They were in a store telling their friends about it.

Thank Lyndon B J for the entitlements.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Oxankle said:


> Pixie; you seem to be one of the do-gooders who are free with other people's money. Did it ever occur to you that the people on welfare could be out looking or ANY KIND of job that would supplement their welfare? No, they will not--so long as they can eke by on welfare they will not work. There is, in fact, a sizeable number who sit home and breed because they know their welfare check and housing allowance goes up.
> 
> I say let them go to work or do without; if on welfare the M/W does not apply to them; they work at least 30 hours per week and show a paycheck or get no welfare.
> 
> If that were the law I'd hire a welfare client to do my landscaping for $5 per hour--that would encourage them to go find real work.
> 
> Or the city could hire them at $2.50 per hour to clean ditches, or to sweep sidewalks, or work in the parks. The $2.50 plus the $17 per hour they get on welfare would support them well.


Seems like a fair solution. But seems to me w/overbloated system of "HUNDREDS" of duplicate programs, gov't could consolidate...& somehow keep track of who's on the dole & thereby know who could do what job...there's a 'job center' in our town. One of my neighbors-she's 74- used to go regularly. Found a job doing those sample give-aways at the gro. store. 
Jobs are out there. Granted there's more part-time than full. 
The # of folks who's given up trying to find work is staggering. The # who are part-time is waaay up. The work force is the lowest since war II.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> My suggestion is this, *wean them off*. You start cutting all the unconstitutional government give-away programs by 5%/year across the board. You give tax breaks to private NPOs who can show that they are actually helping people go from dependence to independence.


Ding ding ding. I do believe you are the first conservative to suggest something that didn't chance hungry or homelessness. The first constructive (in my opinion) suggestion rather than just whining. 

Good job, and a great start.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> And your solution is to keep feeding them so they can be dependent on the government so it can become more and more powerful because people dependent on it will NEVER vote to reduce it? Or to keep them dependent so you can control them. You know "Do as we say or we might just cut your benefits." Or maybe you just want to keep them dependent because it makes you feel good or better than them because they need you.
> 
> You know the definition of insanity right? Keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. We have been doing the same thing for how long and we still have the same problem? Maybe its time we try something else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I remember when we were a 1st world country. When we had the economy which was the envy of the world. When our education system was one of the best in the world. When our enemies feared us because of our economic and military might. When we had people who stood up for and did what was right even if it was hard. When people took responsibility for themselves instead of running around with their hands out demanding someone else give them something.
> 
> All that is just a memory and we might still be an almost first world country now but for how long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one? Nope, some just don't have that ability. But I'm willing to say that 95+% of the people out there can and that other 5%+/- out there could be much better served by the private sector than the government. Those in the private sector CARE about those people are are truly trying to help them. I know because I've been involved in that area for a LONG time. Its counter productive for a government agency to solve a problem. After all if there's no problem all those government workers would not have jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to shock you but you have no right to anything which must be provided to you by another. That means you have no right to housing, no right to food, no right to medical care and many other things people seem to think they have a right to. Because for you to have those things they must first be TAKEN from someone else.
> 
> My suggestion is this, wean them off. You start cutting all the unconstitutional government give-away programs by 5%/year across the board. You give tax breaks to private NPOs who can show that they are actually helping people go from dependence to independence.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Patchouli said:


> Good grief people the OP is about DONATING FOOD not welfare or SNAP or any other government program.


I know, right? There are how many pages of people throwing hissy fits because *I spend my own money*. Dang. Some people would whine about being hung with a new rope.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Oxankle said:


> Pixie; you seem to be one of the do-gooders who are free with other people's money. Did it ever occur to you that the people on welfare could be out looking or ANY KIND of job that would supplement their welfare? No, they will not--so long as they can eke by on welfare they will not work. There is, in fact, a sizeable number who sit home and breed because they know their welfare check and housing allowance goes up.
> 
> I say let them go to work or do without; if on welfare the M/W does not apply to them; they work at least 30 hours per week and show a paycheck or get no welfare.
> 
> If that were the law I'd hire a welfare client to do my landscaping for $5 per hour--that would encourage them to go find real work.
> 
> Or the city could hire them at $2.50 per hour to clean ditches, or to sweep sidewalks, or work in the parks. The $2.50 plus the $17 per hour they get on welfare would support them well.


Let's see, they get both wages and full benefits? For how long? Cuz that's going to add significantly to the cost of the programs. That's not even considering that I don't think anyone can be forced to work for less than minimum wage. 

I do appreciate the non fantasy suggestions.


----------



## Evons hubby

TraderBob said:


> Well, now that summer is here they are still serving breakfast and lunch at the school here to anyone who wants it. I've overheard a couple families talking about why should they spend money on food when they can get it free. They were in a store telling their friends about it.
> 
> Thank Lyndon B J for the entitlements.


LBJ certainly expanded entitlements during his reign but one might remember that it was JFK who kicked that off and it was actually FDR who started the entitlement programs long before Kennedy or Johnson.


----------



## po boy

Governor Requires Food Stamp Recipients to Work 6 Hours a Week..
Nearly 80 percent of people on welfare were cut off the program because they refused to get a job or volunteer to work six hours a week.

The way it should be.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> I know, right? There are how many pages of people throwing hissy fits because *I spend my own money*. Dang. Some people would whine about being hung with a new rope.


I dont mind you spending your own money on any charity of your choosing but this one does add to an ever growing problem by teaching kids that its ok to be dependent upon others. They arent going to be children forever... they grow up and have more of their own. Hoover was right when he told FDR "If you start feeding them today... you will have them to feed forever!". FDR ignored that advice and we are still feeding them and several generations of their offspring.


----------



## arabian knight

Yvonne's hubby said:


> LBJ certainly expanded entitlements during his reign but one might remember that it was JFK who kicked that off and it was actually FDR who started the entitlement programs long before Kennedy or Johnson.


FDR did a lot of harmful things for the USA that we are still feeling today.


----------



## arabian knight

For the kids, don;t know how many times I have heard that from those liberals that have no problem with their government just spending and printing money 24/7 and putting such a debt on the KIDS of the future. But by golly they don;t seem to talk about THAT, which is only government programs to Control the rest of the population and then SAY Oh Its For The Kids.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont mind you spending your own money on any charity of your choosing but this one does add to an ever growing problem by teaching kids that its ok to be dependent upon others. They arent going to be children forever... they grow up and have more of their own. Hoover was right when he told FDR "If you start feeding them today... you will have them to feed forever!". FDR ignored that advice and we are still feeding them and several generations of their offspring.


How are you trying, or at least suggesting, we change that? Please don't go into the fantasy world shtick again. Please. 

I feed kids, they are innocent in this mess and shouldn't be held accountable for something their parents, decades ago federal government, and others did. I use my own money and this entire thread was because I had the utter audacity to remind people that school will be out soon and some kids will be hungry.


----------



## Irish Pixie

po boy said:


> Governor Requires Food Stamp Recipients to Work 6 Hours a Week..
> Nearly 80 percent of people on welfare were cut off the program because they refused to get a job or volunteer to work six hours a week.
> 
> The way it should be.


This could work as long as kids weren't made to go hungry for their parents refusal to comply. I do think that people have more self esteem when doing something constructive.


----------



## watcher

Declan said:


> Our school system is going to free lunches for everybody next year. They have been serving breakfast I think since the 70's.


Excuse me but you should have said your school system is going to be giving away tax payer funded lunches next year. Those lunches aren't free they are paid by China via the billions of dollars we borrow from them. And at sometime they are going to expect to be paid back and the cost is going to be much higher than most people think.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Ding ding ding. I do believe you are the first conservative to suggest something that didn't chance hungry or homelessness. The first constructive (in my opinion) suggestion rather than just whining.
> 
> Good job, and a great start.


Thank you. To me its a very simple solution. I have been pushing the same solution for welfare and all the other unconstitutional government spending programs for decades. The problem is those in power know that keeping people dependent on the government means more power for those in office and staying in office by offering more goodies.


----------



## watcher

arabian knight said:


> FDR did a lot of harmful things for the USA that we are still feeling today.


FDR violated the constitution and more US and international laws than any President in US history. Yet he's viewed as a great President. I don't get it.


----------



## Declan

watcher said:


> Excuse me but you should have said your school system is going to be giving away tax payer funded lunches next year. Those lunches aren't free they are paid by China via the billions of dollars we borrow from them. And at sometime they are going to expect to be paid back and the cost is going to be much higher than most people think.


No I said what I intended to say.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> How are you trying, or at least suggesting, we change that? Please don't go into the fantasy world shtick again. Please.
> 
> I feed kids, they are innocent in this mess and shouldn't be held accountable for something their parents, decades ago federal government, and others did. I use my own money and this entire thread was because I had the utter audacity to remind people that school will be out soon and some kids will be hungry.


I provide a part time work to a young fella who is struggling to make ends meet. I also dont see how suggesting parents feed and clothe their own children is some kind of fantasy land schtick.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> FDR violated the constitution and more US and international laws than any President in US history. Yet he's viewed as a great President. I don't get it.


Dishonest Abe was quite the tyrant himself.... and also regarded by many as a great president.


----------



## TraderBob

Yvonne's hubby said:


> LBJ certainly expanded entitlements during his reign but one might remember that it was JFK who kicked that off and it was actually FDR who started the entitlement programs long before Kennedy or Johnson.


Absolutely correct. FDR started it. It's only gotten more bloated.


----------



## where I want to

watcher said:


> Thank you. To me its a very simple solution. I have been pushing the same solution for welfare and all the other unconstitutional government spending programs for decades. The problem is those in power know that keeping people dependent on the government means more power for those in office and staying in office by offering more goodies.


But you can't believe she was serious when she started a thread saying that children getting what they are getting now are going hungry? Reduction are never part of that scenario.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> But you can't believe she was serious when she started a thread saying that children getting what they are getting now are going hungry? Reduction are never part of that scenario.


I was serious, and I do donate. I simply posted a reminder that there are kids that will go hungry in the summer because they can't eat at school. It's not my fault you have an issue with donating.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I provide a part time work to a young fella who is struggling to make ends meet. I also dont see how suggesting parents feed and clothe their own children is some kind of fantasy land schtick.


It's the outlandishness of the suggestions that have no basis in reality. In fantasy land everyone can support their kids- it's all steak and apple pie but reality is much more... real. 

I'll hazard a guess that the young fella has a vehicle, some sort of education, and experience in whatever you have him doing? Am I close?


----------



## watcher

Declan said:


> No I said what I intended to say.


So are you a liar or just don't understand the fact that those "free" lunches have to be paid by someone and that someone is the federal government?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I was serious, and I do donate. I simply posted a reminder that there are kids that will go hungry in the summer because they can't eat at school. It's not my fault you have an issue with donating.


I *used to donate* to groups which said they were helping the hungry. I stopped when I started really looking at those people. I've seen TOO many people drive up to food give-aways in much better cars than I drive. I've seen TOO many people standing in line for free food with what are clearly recently done tattoos. I've seen TOO many people standing in line for free food with hair dos which cost enough to buy a weeks worth of food. 

I no longer donate time, money nor food to such places. I now work with places which deals with individuals. Places which are perfectly willing to send someone out to buy what someone really needs but at the same time have no problem saying no to a bum.


----------



## Irish Pixie

"As school is winding down, thousands of children in our 6-county service area face the threat of hunger in the summer. Please share this resource widely and learn more about the Summer Food Service Programs in your area. &#8234;#&#8206;summermeals&#8236;"

https://www.facebook.com/foodbanksoutherntier


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> I *used to donate* to groups which said they were helping the hungry. I stopped when I started really looking at those people. I've seen TOO many people drive up to food give-aways in much better cars than I drive. I've seen TOO many people standing in line for free food with what are clearly recently done tattoos. I've seen TOO many people standing in line for free food with hair dos which cost enough to buy a weeks worth of food.
> 
> I no longer donate time, money nor food to such places. I now work with places which deals with individuals. Places which are perfectly willing to send someone out to buy what someone really needs but at the same time have no problem saying no to a bum.


I donate to kids programs regardless if their parents have tattoos, have complex hair, have nails, etc... because I don't know if it actually cost them anything and I try not to judge. Even if they did pay for the "extras" I'd still donate because it's kids and I can.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> I was serious, and I do donate. I simply posted a reminder that there are kids that will go hungry in the summer because they can't eat at school. It's not my fault you have an issue with donating.


Even you know I never said that I have a problem donating- in fact there is a post somewhere on this thread about what I do donate to- you created that in a previous post and I let it slide as I get tired of countering your off the wall statements and letting that control the conversation. It's just an egregious slur to demonize someone rather than talk courteously. A control issue. Hurtful but pretty transparent.

And the whole thread would have faded into memory by now if you had simply posted a reminder. You just can't stop throwing accusations around as if they were actually rational arguments. 

The only thing I'm not sure about is whether you believe your creations or not. But luckily it is not a question where knowing the answer will change anything so it's easy to let go.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> Even you know I never said that I have a problem donating- in fact there is a post somewhere on this thread about what I do donate to- you created that in a previous post and I let it slide as I get tired of countering your off the wall statements and letting that control the conversation. It's just an egregious slur to demonize someone rather than talk courteously. A control issue. Hurtful but pretty transparent.
> 
> And the whole thread would have faded into memory by now if you had simply posted a reminder. You just can't stop throwing accusations around as if they were actually rational arguments.
> 
> The only thing I'm not sure about is whether you believe your creations or not. But luckily it is not a question where knowing the answer will change anything so it's easy to let go.


Wow. Pot. Kettle. Black. And I'm pretty sure your melt down about me "getting personal" (which I didn't) is able to be read right on this thread... yup, pages 10-11 maybe more that's all I checked.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> Wow. Pot. Kettle. Black. And I'm pretty sure your melt down about me "getting personal" (which I didn't) is able to be read right on this thread... yup, pages 10-11 maybe more that's all I checked.


Yes-pot and kettle. I'm trying that because I was hoping , that if the pot was called out, they would feel the sting enough to stop made making personal remarks and insults in almost every post. This would allow a better exchange of actual ideas. Or at least delay pushing every thread into the same worn down rut.

I did not melt down but did it in cold blood.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> Yes-pot and kettle. I'm trying that because I was hoping , that if the pot was called out, they would feel the sting enough to stop made making personal remarks and insults in almost every post. This would allow a better exchange of actual ideas. Or at least delay pushing every thread into the same worn down rut.
> 
> I did not melt down but did it in cold blood.


Oh, I see. It was for the good of the forum. Bless your heart.


----------



## Oxankle

Forget it kids; you will never be able to reason with a liberal who thinks that your money should be spent where they want it to go. 

Liberals have gotten us an entitlement nation now, and one that thinks no law applies to them. Feed them long enough and they'll be dangerous if you even think about cutting some of their free stuff.


----------



## arabian knight

Oxankle said:


> Forget it kids; you will never be able to reason with a liberal who thinks that your money should be spent where they want it to go.
> 
> Liberals have gotten us an entitlement nation now, and one that thinks no law applies to them. Feed them long enough and they'll be dangerous if you even think about cutting some of their free stuff.


Oh that is for sure and many of the posts are now nothing more then a huge trolling event and beyond any new thoughts which there i none it is a troll at its best.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I donate to kids programs regardless if their parents have tattoos, have complex hair, have nails, etc... because I don't know if it actually cost them anything and I try not to judge. Even if they did pay for the "extras" I'd still donate because it's kids and I can.


If supporting other people's kids makes you feel good go right ahead. If enabling people to continue to have kids they can not afford or are not willing to feed makes you feel good, be my guest. 

But let me say this. I think you are harming more kids than you'll ever help with your good intentions. You are teaching them that they can act as irresponsibly as they wish and someone will step in and take care of whatever problem their actions cause. You are telling people they can take the money that should be used to feed their kid and spend it on that new tatt because they can get some smuck somewhere to feed the kid. I know because over the decades I have dealt with many people who have experienced the consequences of these actions. 

BTW remember the old saying; The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> If supporting other people's kids makes you feel good go right ahead. If enabling people to continue to have kids they can not afford or are not willing to feed makes you feel good, be my guest.
> 
> But let me say this. I think you are harming more kids than you'll ever help with your good intentions. You are teaching them that they can act as irresponsibly as they wish and someone will step in and take care of whatever problem their actions cause. You are telling people they can take the money that should be used to feed their kid and spend it on that new tatt because they can get some smuck somewhere to feed the kid. I know because over the decades I have dealt with many people who have experienced the consequences of these actions.
> 
> BTW remember the old saying; The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.


I don't believe in hell so I'm good. :grin:

I listen to my conscious, and she tells me that feeding kids is a good thing. I don't need anyone's consent to donate my money anywhere I'd like.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Oxankle said:


> Forget it kids; you will never be able to reason with a liberal who thinks that your money should be spent where they want it to go.
> 
> Liberals have gotten us an entitlement nation now, and one that thinks no law applies to them. Feed them long enough and they'll be dangerous if you even think about cutting some of their free stuff.


Where exactly did I say I want to spend your money? I spend my own money. Why on earth would you have a problem with that? Can you explain, please?


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> Oh that is for sure and many of the posts are now nothing more then a huge trolling event and beyond any new thoughts which there i none it is a troll at its best.


Was it trolling when a group was allowed to say anything they wanted, to the point of being rude, and it was at least condoned, at most encouraged? Now that the playing field is level that group is whining about trolls because when a topic gets too hot their statements are questioned and the thread isn't locked? 

Both sides get to voice an opinion now. It's a good thing.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> It's the outlandishness of the suggestions that have no basis in reality. In fantasy land everyone can support their kids- it's all steak and apple pie but reality is much more... real.
> 
> I'll hazard a guess that the young fella has a vehicle, some sort of education, and experience in whatever you have him doing? Am I close?


Well you got one out of three correct anyway.... he does know how to read and write so obviously he has had some education. I dont know for sure but I would hazard a guess high school.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> Was it trolling when a group was allowed to say anything they wanted, to the point of being rude, and it was at least condoned, at most encouraged? Now that the playing field is level that group is whining about trolls because when a topic gets too hot their statements are questioned and the thread isn't locked?
> 
> Both sides get to voice an opinion now. It's a good thing.


Really- you're basking in the warmth now? I agree that Angie did take an exception to some liberal trolls but she did take action against people who had the opposite position too. It's just that some did not see anything beyond their own situation, assigned it not to their own behavior but anti-liberal bias. 
I felt the wrath of Angie as did others you would certainly shovel into the dust heap of conservative.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> Really- you're basking in the warmth now? I agree that Angie did take an exception to some liberal trolls but she did take action against people who had the opposite position too. It's just that some did not see anything beyond their own situation, assigned it not to their own behavior but anti-liberal bias.
> I felt the wrath of Angie as did others you would certainly shovel into the dust heap of conservative.


Isn't it wonderful to have an opinion?


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> Isn't it wonderful to have an opinion?


Yes, I do like the new freedom. But it is a waste to have it constantly devolve into personal sniping. Wouldn't it be nice not to go there? 
But I've gone as far down that road as I want. So the last words are yours.


----------



## arabian knight

where I want to said:


> Yes, I do like the new freedom. But it is a waste to have it constantly devolve into personal sniping. Wouldn't it be nice not to go there?
> But I've gone as far down that road as I want. So the last words are yours.


Like always the left has the last words. They always want the last ones to prove they are the reigning people of the obama godless.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> The fact that their parents are irresponsible is irrelevant.
> 
> Can we agree on that?


 No, its the primary issue.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> No, its the primary issue.


I guess we'll never understand each other because to me hungry kids will always be more important. 

It's sad because there are very very few people that have constructive, real world, steps to lessen the other issues. I'll never understand punishing a child for something their parent(s) have done.


----------



## mnn2501

wr said:


> Not every poor parent is a layabout, druggie, smoker or system abuser, sometimes, it's just bad circumstances that bring them to that point. I could cite many situations in my own area of decent hardworking folks, who ended up in a bad way through no fault of their own.


Yes, but they all have access to numerous food handout programs (food stamps, WIC, community food pantries, etc) - its pure laziness that they can not fix a meal for their kids.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> Yes, but they all have access to numerous food handout programs (food stamps, WIC, community food pantries, etc) - its pure laziness that they can not fix a meal for their kids.





mnn2501 said:


> No one is for punishing kids, no one is for kids going hungry - we want the kids put where their parents actually care.
> Families can get food (food stamps, WIC, food pantries, etc). Its pure lazyness that parents don't feed their kids or they spend their money on 'other things' Food and shelter come before: cable TV, cell phones, tattoo's and hair do's.



ETA. Generalizations and judging strangers really suck. That said, have a wonderful day.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> I guess we'll never understand each other because to me hungry kids will always be more important.
> 
> It's sad because there are very very few people that have constructive, real world, steps to lessen the other issues. I'll never understand punishing a child for something their parent(s) have done.


No one is for punishing kids, no one is for kids going hungry - we want the kids put where their parents actually care.
Families can get food (food stamps, WIC, food pantries, etc). Its pure lazyness that parents don't feed their kids or they spend their money on 'other things' Food and shelter come before: cable TV, cell phones, tattoo's and hair do's.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> ETA. Generalizations and judging strangers really suck. That said, have a wonderful day.


Can't refute it so try to belittle it. Typical of liberal do-gooders.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> Can't refute it so try to belittle it. Typical of liberal do-gooders.


There is nothing to refute. Period. You have no idea what is going on in someone else's home and life, yet you have no problem pronouncing them *ALL* lazy people that neglect their children and abuse the system. 

You really can't see that making a generalization like you did in two separate posts is wrong?


----------



## arabian knight

mnn2501 said:


> Yes, but they all have access to numerous food handout programs (food stamps, WIC, community food pantries, etc) - its pure laziness that they can not fix a meal for their kids.


 And now on top of all that there has been bred generations that KNOW NOTHING other then living off those free handouts. No more taking responsibility for oneself or even trying To Pursue Happiness, they want happiness handed to them on a golden platter. Just hav more kids and the money rolls in and that has gone through the High Schools like wildfire. They just want it given to them without any initiative on there parts. Can't go and get even free food from so many places just sit home and wait and watch others give them one to spent on whatever they want to not food stuffs either. Homeless people standing on corners taking in 10's of thousands a year and move form city to city following the seasons.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> There is nothing to refute. Period. You have no idea what is going on in someone else's home and life, yet you have no problem pronouncing them lazy people that neglect their children and abuse the system.
> 
> You really can't see that making a generalization like you did in two separate posts is wrong?


Do you deny that the poor have access to food stamps? (and other programs including WIC and food pantries)?

So if they have access to the food yet don't feed their kids -- What would you call it?


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> I guess we'll never understand each other because to me hungry kids will always be more important.
> 
> It's sad because there are very very few people that have constructive, real world, steps to lessen the other issues. I'll never understand punishing a child for something their parent(s) have done.


There is no need to punish these kids.... its their irresponsible parents that need to be dealt with. Until we do that there will continue to be kids getting "punished" by their parents. To me its more important to cure the disease instead of just treating symptoms.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is no need to punish these kids.... its their irresponsible parents that need to be dealt with. Until we do that there will continue to be kids getting "punished" by their parents. To me its more important to cure the disease instead of just treating symptoms.


And again, I agree with it if the kid isn't going to go hungry. The kid isn't at fault, the kid has no control over his or her life.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't believe in hell so I'm good. :grin:
> 
> I listen to my conscious, and she tells me that feeding kids is a good thing. I don't need anyone's consent to donate my money anywhere I'd like.


Hell is not necessary a theoretical place bad people go to. I've seen a lot of people living in Hell right here on earth. 

If your neighbor's conscious told them giving drugs to an addicted teen was a good thing because it made the teen feel good and prevented him from going though the "Hell" of withdrawal would you think they were doing a good thing? In you didn't would you not try to point out to him the error of his logic?

How about someone who keeps bailing a kid out of jail or paying his fines because its just too harsh to punish a kid for breaking the law? Is that a good thing? Giving alcohol to a boozer? A 'new' shopping cart to a homeless guy?

I've dealt with people who have done all of those. I've also dealt with the people who have had those things done to them. And I can tell you that second group was harmed much more by all that 'help' than they ever would have been if they had not been 'helped'. 

And I'm not just talking teens and young adults. I know a 60+ year old man who lives in a junked up trailer, drinks and "used to" do drugs. One of the main reasons he is were he is, is the fact his parents always "helped" him when he had a problem. They'd give him money when he "need to get his car fixed" but knowing he was going to buy drugs with it. They'd look the other way when he stole something from them to sell to buy drugs. They'd bail him out and hire lawyers to defend him when he was arrested. He was never taught to take responsibility for his life. He never learned there are consequences for his actions. And because of this he is nothing more than a demanding pre-teen in a 60+ y.o. body still demanding that he gets what he wants. Its sad to see a life destroyed by someone's good intentions, need to feel needed and/or ego trips.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I guess we'll never understand each other because to me hungry kids will always be more important.
> 
> It's sad because there are very very few people that have constructive, real world, steps to lessen the other issues. I'll never understand punishing a child for something their parent(s) have done.


If you do a little research you will discover that a large percentage of kids grow up to be just like their parents. Children if alcoholics tend to grow up to be alcoholics. Children of abusers tend to grow up to be abusers. Children of self reliant hard working independent thinking parents tend to grow up to be self reliant, hard working and independent thinkers. Children of worthless bums tend to grow up to be worthless bums.

By showing children that its just fine to be a bum and let others take care of your children you are breading a new generation of people who will think they have no need to care for their children.


----------



## wr

arabian knight said:


> Oh that is for sure and many of the posts are now nothing more then a huge trolling event and beyond any new thoughts which there i none it is a troll at its best.


Isn't that the truth? There always seems to be those few that have to take a simple idea, like a voluntary program and turn it into an opportunity to some seriously odd assumptions and accusations.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> ETA. Generalizations and judging strangers really suck. That said, have a wonderful day.


But you do that with everyone that disagrees with you!! ound:


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> There is nothing to refute. Period. You have no idea what is going on in someone else's home and life, yet you have no problem pronouncing them *ALL* lazy people that neglect their children and abuse the system.
> 
> You really can't see that making a generalization like you did in two separate posts is wrong?


Some generalizations are correct based on facts or can be considered correct based on multiple observations. Based on what I personally observed at the dozens of food pantries, food give-aways and such I have been involved with I have to say that the generalization of needing anything other than unconstitutional government handouts is a result of laziness, stupidity and/or down right neglect. If you can't feed your kids with all the stuff you can get given to you by the government *you need counseling not just more free stuff.*

But that's the root of the problem. These people don't want to take care of themselves. They want and feel its their "right" to be taken care of. Yeah, its my kid but why should I be required to feed him, you do it. 

I've shown more than one person how to feed themselves on the cheap. Growing up poor teaches you to be creative. With nothing more than a crock pot and some water, beans, rice, potatoes, frozen veggies (cheaper than fresh) and some spices you can make some very nutritious and tasty meals for very little time or money. It doesn't take a lot of meat for a meal if you dice it up and add into something. Casseroles are cheap to make plus they can be frozen cooked or not. Pick up a blender at a thrift store or from a local church supply closet and you can make good, nutritious baby food for much less than those little jars. Bread from the "day old store" is fine for several days and after that you can toast it and not tell its a little stale. Iced tea and even generic kool-aid is much cheaper than sodas for drink treats. Plus you can freeze the kool-aid for a special treat.

After all these years the number of people who thinks cooking is following the directions on the side of a can or box still amazes me.


----------



## JeffreyD

wr said:


> Isn't that the truth? There always seems to be those few that have to take a simple idea, like a voluntary program and turn it into an opportunity to some seriously odd assumptions and accusations.


 And some very good questions were never answered and yet those same valid questions were belittled and chastised as nonsense by some here too. Constructive criticism is not welcomed by those entrenched in their own little world.

It goes both ways.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Not worth it.


----------



## mnn2501

mnn2501 said:


> Do you deny that the poor have access to food stamps? (and other programs including WIC and food pantries)?
> 
> So if they have access to the food yet don't feed their kids -- What would you call it?


I guess the questions that proves the fallacy of someones thought process just get ignored.
Come on, they are very simple questions, just answer them.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> I guess the questions that proves the fallacy of someones thought process just get ignored.
> Come on, they are very simple questions, just answer them.


I stand by my post: "There is nothing to refute. Period. You have no idea what is going on in someone else's home and life, yet you have no problem pronouncing them *ALL* lazy people that neglect their children and abuse the system. 

You really can't see that making a generalization like you did in two separate posts is wrong?"

Baiting me to try to get me to answer your questions won't work. But don't let that stop you.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> I stand by my post: "There is nothing to refute. Period. You have no idea what is going on in someone else's home and life, yet you have no problem pronouncing them *ALL* lazy people that neglect their children and abuse the system.
> 
> You really can't see that making a generalization like you did in two separate posts is wrong?"
> 
> Baiting me to try to get me to answer your questions won't work. But don't let that stop you.


Guess giving an honest answer is just too hard for some people.

How about just the first question - yes or no: Do you deny that the poor have access to food stamps? (and other programs including WIC and food pantries)?


----------



## po boy

Irish Pixie said:


> I stand by my post: "There is nothing to refute. Period. You have no idea what is going on in someone else's home and life, yet you have no problem pronouncing them *ALL* lazy people that neglect their children and abuse the system.
> 
> You really can't see that making a generalization like you did in two separate posts is wrong?"
> 
> Baiting me to try to get me to answer your questions won't work. But don't let that stop you.


You have no idea what is going on in someone else's home and life, *nor do you!*
pronouncing them *ALL* lazy people that neglect their children and abuse the system. 
*Show me*

*Baiting, the reason for your silly post! *

It's hard to believe that someone would promote a Non-profit that spends only 20% of their donations on the ones they claim to be helping>


----------



## 7thswan

mnn2501 said:


> Do you deny that the poor have access to food stamps? (and other programs including WIC and food pantries)?
> 
> So if they have access to the food yet don't feed their kids -- What would you call it?


VOTERS. VOTERS that want more handouts. That is ALL any polihack wants. MOre stuff. ...gosh how nice, someone will feed my kids so I won't have to, I can spend my gov. dollars on _____________hair,nails,car,tickets to start a riot in a gated community's pool....


----------



## 7thswan

wr said:


> Isn't that the truth? There always seems to be those few that have to take a simple idea, like a voluntary program and turn it into an opportunity to some seriously odd assumptions and accusations.


Tell you what, take Your hand , trace it, send it out to all the lib whiners so they can tape it to their wall, back up anytime they want and pat themselves on the back.
Now do you understand why reasoning and fixing the REAL problem dosen't make the left happy. I do NOT anymore belive they care, if they did, they would go to the real root of the problem.


----------



## Declan

"And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God."--Leviticus 23:22 KJV

Is there a fundamental difference if your harvest is in a field or from your wallet? Some people think so. I do not.


----------



## 7thswan

Declan said:


> "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God."--Leviticus 23:22 KJV
> 
> Is there a fundamental difference if your harvest is in a field or from your wallet? Some people think so. I do not.


The harvest is our taxes. The shame is parents that are on all kinds of government $ and the Parents still don't feed their children. That is abuse.
Take a child being abused by parents-if the mother hands the whip to the father to beat his child, is the mother free from critisum.

ps, the gleanings are something they would not harvest or do not need/want.


----------



## mnn2501

Declan said:


> "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God."--Leviticus 23:22 KJV
> 
> Is there a fundamental difference if your harvest is in a field or from your wallet? Some people think so. I do not.


You do realize that gleanings are the left overs in the field that the poor have to actually work to collect, its not handed to them on a silver platter, they go out to the field with their bags or baskets and bend over picking up the gleanings (left overs) then they take them home process them and then cook them for their family -- I am perfectly OK with that.


----------



## Patchouli

mnn2501 said:


> Do you deny that the poor have access to food stamps? (and other programs including WIC and food pantries)?
> 
> So if they have access to the food yet don't feed their kids -- What would you call it?


Food stamps may not cover your food needs. A local food pantry may not exist or may not be well supplied. WIC only covers a very limited amount of foods for a very short time.


----------



## Patchouli

mnn2501 said:


> You do realize that gleanings are the left overs in the field that the poor have to actually work to collect, its not handed to them on a silver platter, they go out to the field with their bags or baskets and bend over picking up the gleanings (left overs) then they take them home process them and then cook them for their family -- I am perfectly OK with that.


You do realize this is no longer physically doable these days for multiple reasons? Like most fields don't contain items that are easily edible for humans. Why don't you go glean your closest field of hard corn or soy beans and let us know how well you feed yourself? Oh and transportation to and from those fields for people with no cars? Airplane rides since a good chunk of them will need to fly to the midwest where over 50% of our fields of grain are grown. The sheer logistics of gleaning today vs. in bible times when the majority of the citizens of Israel were farmers are what led us to using cash and food pantries today.


----------



## po boy

Patchouli said:


> Food stamps *may not* cover your food needs. A local food pantry *may not exist* or *may not be well supplied*. WIC only covers a very limited amount of foods for a very short time.


I believe food stamps pays $5 per day per individual. That's not hard to do and I do it day in and day out.

It's hard to believe that local food pantries do not exist in most communities. My experience is that they are begging for people to come get free food and they are well equipped.


----------



## po boy

Patchouli said:


> You do realize this is no longer physically doable these days for multiple reasons? Like most fields don't contain items that are easily edible for humans. Why don't you go glean your closest field of hard corn or soy beans and let us know how well you feed yourself? Oh and transportation to and from those fields for people with no cars? Airplane rides since a good chunk of them will need to fly to the midwest where over 50% of our fields of grain are grown. The sheer logistics of gleaning today vs. in bible times when the majority of the citizens of Israel were farmers are what led us to using cash and food pantries today.


Wow, they had mass transit, food processors and cars way back then!


----------



## Declan

7thswan said:


> The harvest is our taxes. The shame is parents that are on all kinds of government $ and the Parents still don't feed their children. That is abuse.
> Take a child being abused by parents-if the mother hands the whip to the father to beat his child, is the mother free from critisum.
> 
> ps, the gleanings are something they would not harvest or do not need/want.


Actually gleanings are that which was not collected in the first harvest, not just what people do not need/want.


----------



## MO_cows

Patchouli said:


> Food stamps may not cover your food needs. A local food pantry may not exist or may not be well supplied. WIC only covers a very limited amount of foods for a very short time.


Food stamps are not supposed to cover all your food needs. That's why the S in SNAP stands for supplemental. But somewhere along the way the mindset changed like you just demonstrated, that you should be able to provide all your food needs with SNAP.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Declan said:


> "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God."--Leviticus 23:22 KJV
> 
> Is there a fundamental difference if your harvest is in a field or from your wallet? Some people think so. I do not.


This is the definition:

gleanâ¢ings (&#712;gli n&#618;&#331;z) 

n.pl.
things found or acquired by gleaning.

And no, no difference.


----------



## AmericanStand

Patchouli said:


> You do realize this is no longer physically doable these days for multiple reasons? Like most fields don't contain items that are easily edible for humans. Why don't you go glean your closest field of hard corn or soy beans and let us know how well you feed yourself? Oh and transportation to and from those fields for people with no cars? Airplane rides since a good chunk of them will need to fly to the midwest where over 50% of our fields of grain are grown. The sheer logistics of gleaning today vs. in bible times when the majority of the citizens of Israel were farmers are what led us to using cash and food pantries today.



This is so not true ! You can make it on gleanings I'm in the middle of of Illinois where folks think there's nothing to be had. 
Within walking distance of my town there are corn , soybean and wheat fields. Those are the big three. But there is also oats alfalfa turnips radishes and pumpkins sunflowers popcorn sweet corn plums apples pears strawberries blackberries raspberries mulberries and persimmons. 
You could make it on that and a few things found in the woods like some of the above and acorns walnuts hickory nuts hazelnuts . 
And that's Illinois ,if you lived in most places where most people live I think you would have a greater variety.


----------



## AmericanStand

It occurs to me that most things food banks and pantries distribute ARE gleanings. 
In fact the largest food bank in Indiana is NAMED GLEANERS !


----------



## MO_cows

AmericanStand said:


> This is so not true ! You can make it on gleanings I'm in the middle of of Illinois where folks think there's nothing to be had.
> Within walking distance of my town there are corn , soybean and wheat fields. Those are the big three. But there is also oats alfalfa turnips radishes and pumpkins sunflowers popcorn sweet corn plums apples pears strawberries blackberries raspberries mulberries and persimmons.
> You could make it on that and a few things found in the woods like some of the above and acorns walnuts hickory nuts hazelnuts .
> And that's Illinois ,if you lived in most places where most people live I think you would have a greater variety.


Unfortunately most people don't have the skills any more to glean from agriculture and harvest from the wild. Shoot you could put a nice plump squirrel in the pot even in the most urban of settings.....if you only knew how.


----------



## wr

AmericanStand said:


> This is so not true ! You can make it on gleanings I'm in the middle of of Illinois where folks think there's nothing to be had.
> Within walking distance of my town there are corn , soybean and wheat fields. Those are the big three. But there is also oats alfalfa turnips radishes and pumpkins sunflowers popcorn sweet corn plums apples pears strawberries blackberries raspberries mulberries and persimmons.
> You could make it on that and a few things found in the woods like some of the above and acorns walnuts hickory nuts hazelnuts .
> And that's Illinois ,if you lived in most places where most people live I think you would have a greater variety.



Do most people in Illinois allow gleaning on their land? My Aunt used to glean for a local food bank and she told me it was getting pretty tough to find farmers who weren't afraid of lawsuits.


----------



## AmericanStand

I've never had a problem getting allowed to glean. One of the few laws I like here is one that protects landowners from lawsuit if they don't charge admission. 
In a related way I seem to remember someone suggesting virtual orchards , taking care of people's yard fruit trees , keeping the fruit or most of it in return for keeping the yard clean of fruit mess. It seems like a great idea.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> Food stamps may not cover your food needs. A local food pantry may not exist or may not be well supplied. WIC only covers a very limited amount of foods for a very short time.


As I have posted if you can't feed your family on what the government will unconstitutionally give you, you need to be educated. I don't know the current money someone with a four member household gets a month but I'm fairly sure I could buy enough food to feed them for that long. They may eat a lot of beans, rice and taters but their belly won't be rubbing their back bones.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> You do realize this is no longer physically doable these days for multiple reasons? Like most fields don't contain items that are easily edible for humans. Why don't you go glean your closest field of hard corn or soy beans and let us know how well you feed yourself? Oh and transportation to and from those fields for people with no cars? Airplane rides since a good chunk of them will need to fly to the midwest where over 50% of our fields of grain are grown. The sheer logistics of gleaning today vs. in bible times when the majority of the citizens of Israel were farmers are what led us to using cash and food pantries today.


I don't know how they are going to get there but I can tell you anyone who wants to take the effort can pick up plenty of stuff in a field which has been harvested with modern equipment. With large scale farming you have to balance speed and cleanliness of what you harvest with loss. If you set the equipment to get as much of the harvest possible you are going to need a lot more time (and fuel) and what you harvest is going to have a lot more debris in it which will cost you money when you try to sell it.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

AmericanStand said:


> I've never had a problem getting allowed to glean. One of the few laws I like here is one that protects landowners from lawsuit if they don't charge admission.
> In a related way I seem to remember someone suggesting virtual orchards , taking care of people's yard fruit trees , keeping the fruit or most of it in return for keeping the yard clean of fruit mess. It seems like a great idea.


I have no idea about elsewhere, but here in NC WR is right. The farmers are sitting in the tractor with a disk to cut in whatever is left after the harvest is complete for sweet potatoes because of the overzealous abulance chasers. ---- shame too! A lot of edible potatoes are turned in. I do have one neighbor that posts no trespassing signs and gives a local food bank two days to glean the fields. But he pays someone to sit at night to prevent trespassers out of fear. Then whatever they can't get is turned under.


----------



## TraderBob

Declan said:


> "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God."--Leviticus 23:22 KJV
> 
> Is there a fundamental difference if your harvest is in a field or from your wallet? Some people think so. I do not.


Sure there is. Big difference. It's called gleaning, and they have to work for it...it isn't handed to them. They have to go into the fields and harvest it themselves. It is still practiced in some places. 

I certainly wouldn't let them in my wallet to harvest for themselves, they didn't work for it. i would however let them glean my orchards and fields. That way they are earning it...you know, the fruits of their labors....


----------



## wr

7thswan said:


> Tell you what, take Your hand , trace it, send it out to all the lib whiners so they can tape it to their wall, back up anytime they want and pat themselves on the back.
> 
> Now do you understand why reasoning and fixing the REAL problem dosen't make the left happy. I do NOT anymore belive they care, if they did, they would go to the real root of the problem.



I've worked in various leadership positions throughout my career and I assure you the people's minds close when you use that kind of contempt. 

From an outsiders perspective, I can tell you that neither side has heard anything the other has said. Both are making assumptions and realistically, it's a huge reach to assume that because someone supports a summer lunch program, they are out to ruin your country. 

I've read many similar threads over the years and many seem to feel that folks should rely on church and community for support but when the subject is broached it's now a bad thing and the person suggesting a step toward what conservatives have mentioned, the daggers come out and the name calling begins.


----------



## Declan

MO_cows said:


> Unfortunately most people don't have the skills any more to glean from agriculture and harvest from the wild. Shoot you could put a nice plump squirrel in the pot even in the most urban of settings.....if you only knew how.


In my city, unless you beat it to death with a stick it would be illegal hunting and if you did beat it to death with a stick, it would be animal cruelty. There is a very short bow season in the city and you can only hunt on your own land. I don't remember the details of how the incident started, but there was a police officer in my city several years ago who was charged with animal cruelty for stomping to death a possum he got tangled up with on a call.


----------



## AmericanStand

nchobbyfarm said:


> I have no idea about elsewhere, but here in NC WR is right. The farmers are sitting in the tractor with a disk to cut in whatever is left after the harvest is complete for sweet potatoes because of the overzealous abulance chasers. ---- shame too! A lot of edible potatoes are turned in. I do have one neighbor that posts no trespassing signs and gives a local food bank two days to glean the fields. But he pays someone to sit at night to prevent trespassers out of fear. Then whatever they can't get is turned under.



Sounds like you need a hold harmless law like Illinois 
AND
More Christian farmers.


----------



## Irish Pixie

There are a few local farmers that will let friends glean potatoes but that's in another county where I co own the family farm. Most landowners won't allow people, especially strangers, on their land because of liability issues. I don't, and I carry a million plus in liability insurance because of the amount of land I own. It's just not worth the risk.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Declan said:


> "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God."--Leviticus 23:22 KJV
> 
> Is there a fundamental difference if your harvest is in a field or from your wallet? Some people think so. I do not.


Prolly why conservatives -according to STUDIES-give more to charity than do liberals, give more of there TIME than do liberals and also give more blood than do liberals.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> Food stamps may not cover your food needs. A local food pantry may not exist or may not be well supplied. WIC only covers a very limited amount of foods for a very short time.


Gotta link?
B/c I was on food stamps for 7 months. Far more food than we could use. MIL was once on. She couldn't use them all. This was in the late 70s. 
And go ahead, jump all over this, but I'm STILL an advocate for SNAP, just not like it is now w/40% on it for years & years.

So, Since YOU made the statement, let us see if its still the same, less or more.


----------



## MO_cows

Tricky Grama said:


> Prolly why conservatives -according to STUDIES-give more to charity than do liberals, give more of there TIME than do liberals and also give more blood than do liberals.


I've read that too, and years ago John Stossel looked at the phenomenon when he was still on 20/20. Which makes it all the more puzzling why this thread ran so far off the rails because the OP was a reminder for charitable giving.

My personal theory, Pixie didn't represent herself very well in another thread right before this one started, so prejudice from that carried over here. But, hey, I've been wrong before!


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> I've read that too, and years ago John Stossel looked at the phenomenon when he was still on 20/20. Which makes it all the more puzzling why this thread ran so far off the rails because the OP was a reminder for charitable giving.
> 
> My personal theory, Pixie didn't represent herself very well in another thread right before this one started, so prejudice from that carried over here. But, hey, I've been wrong before!


Could be, MO Cows. It's more likely it's simply because they perceive me as liberal, and therefore must be evil.


----------



## Declan

Tricky Grama said:


> Prolly why conservatives -according to STUDIES-give more to charity than do liberals, give more of there TIME than do liberals and also give more blood than do liberals.


Why does it matter which party is more charitable? I don't think that some kid should go hungry or feed themselves on dandelions and crickets just because their mom/dad may or may not be a deadbeat.

After seeing the big kerfuffle about this community allegedly being victimized and now to see people get all bent out of shape because people want to help the people in their actual real world community with something so fundamental as food is kind of depressing.


----------



## watcher

Ok as has been said google is your friend. According to the USDA a family of 4 is eligible for $649/month from SNAP aka food stamps. That works out to about $21.63 per day or $5.41/day/person. 

I can tell you this I could very easily feed 4 people for a month with that much money. For this little experiment we'll take it as given I already have my spices. 

$10 would buy enough oatmeal for breakfast for 4 for a month. 

Figure a gallon of milk/wk @ $4/gal gives us another $16. 

Two loaves of bread/wk @ $1.50 is $12

A 20# bag of rice gives about 200 servings for $9

A $7 bag of pinto beans will give 100 servings for $7

For $6 we can get enough white beans for 50 servings

The same for black and red beans for a total of $12

Now we start getting into the real money. . .

You need $15 to buy 50 servings of frozen broccoli.

About the same for frozen cauliflower and spinach so there's $30 more dollars

Taters run around $5 for a 10 or 15 pound bag depending on where and when you buy them but lets give us 2 bags for another $10

Good onions will run you about a buck a pound so lets toss in $10 worth.

To liven things up a bit we'll toss in some meat. You can live w/o it and it tends to be a bit expensive but what the hey.

Prices vary depending on the cut and if you buy "family" packs and if you catch it when its been "marked down for quick sale". I know I can buy pork for for less but I'll use $2.75/lbs. If you check you'll find that during WWII you were only allowed around 2#/person/wk so we'll use that here.

2lbs/wk*4 ppl *4 wk/month * $2.75/lbs gives us $88 for the month. 

If my math is correct so far I've spent $225 and have more than enough food to keep the four of us alive and healthy for a month. I still have $424 to buy long term bulk items (e.g. flour, sugar, cooking oil) as well as fresh fruit, juice, cheese and more.

Now you'll note that some of these numbers are based on 50, 100 and in the case of the rice 200 servings, We only need 48 meals total in a month and breakfast is taken care in the first line so we only need 32 meals for the month. So next month we won't even have to spend this much.

Would I *like* to live on nothing but this food long term? No. I could and have lived on even less but I sure didn't like it. I've seen times we ate beans, cornbread and fried taters for lunch and dinner for an entire week. You should not be living high on the hog when you are living on charity.

So I'll say it once again if a kid is going hungry its not because his parent can't buy him enough food with the money the government is unconstitutionally giving them.


----------



## arabian knight

watcher said:


> So I'll say it once again if a kid is going hungry its not because his parent can't buy him enough food with the money the government is unconstitutionally giving them.


 If they would be buying FOOD instead of Junk with FS they may have more food in the house then they can eat in a month.
And in WI they are about to do something about that. A Good Portion of FS MUST be spent on Wholesome FOOD. And you can no longer buy such expensive things as Lobster Tail to eat. LOL


----------



## AmericanStand

I thought lobster had hit all time lows ?


----------



## Oxankle

I've seen them come in with their welfare cards and buy groceries (not careful shopping, but still groceries) then haul out a chunk of cash to pay for their cartons of beer.

We taxpayers are such SUCKERS!!!!


----------



## arabian knight

AmericanStand said:


> I thought lobster had hit all time lows ?


Well if you consider 25 bucks a pound LOW then it has hit a all time low. LOL


----------



## Old Vet

watcher said:


> Ok as has been said google is your friend. According to the USDA a family of 4 is eligible for $649/month from SNAP aka food stamps. That works out to about $21.63 per day or $5.41/day/person.
> 
> I can tell you this I could very easily feed 4 people for a month with that much money. For this little experiment we'll take it as given I already have my spices.
> 
> $10 would buy enough oatmeal for breakfast for 4 for a month.
> 
> Figure a gallon of milk/wk @ $4/gal gives us another $16.
> 
> Two loaves of bread/wk @ $1.50 is $12
> 
> A 20# bag of rice gives about 200 servings for $9
> 
> A $7 bag of pinto beans will give 100 servings for $7
> 
> For $6 we can get enough white beans for 50 servings
> 
> The same for black and red beans for a total of $12
> 
> Now we start getting into the real money. . .
> 
> You need $15 to buy 50 servings of frozen broccoli.
> 
> About the same for frozen cauliflower and spinach so there's $30 more dollars
> 
> Taters run around $5 for a 10 or 15 pound bag depending on where and when you buy them but lets give us 2 bags for another $10
> 
> Good onions will run you about a buck a pound so lets toss in $10 worth.
> 
> To liven things up a bit we'll toss in some meat. You can live w/o it and it tends to be a bit expensive but what the hey.
> 
> Prices vary depending on the cut and if you buy "family" packs and if you catch it when its been "marked down for quick sale". I know I can buy pork for for less but I'll use $2.75/lbs. If you check you'll find that during WWII you were only allowed around 2#/person/wk so we'll use that here.
> 
> 2lbs/wk*4 ppl *4 wk/month * $2.75/lbs gives us $88 for the month.
> 
> If my math is correct so far I've spent $225 and have more than enough food to keep the four of us alive and healthy for a month. I still have $424 to buy long term bulk items (e.g. flour, sugar, cooking oil) as well as fresh fruit, juice, cheese and more.
> 
> Now you'll note that some of these numbers are based on 50, 100 and in the case of the rice 200 servings, We only need 48 meals total in a month and breakfast is taken care in the first line so we only need 32 meals for the month. So next month we won't even have to spend this much.
> 
> Would I *like* to live on nothing but this food long term? No. I could and have lived on even less but I sure didn't like it. I've seen times we ate beans, cornbread and fried taters for lunch and dinner for an entire week. You should not be living high on the hog when you are living on charity.
> 
> So I'll say it once again if a kid is going hungry its not because his parent can't buy him enough food with the money the government is unconstitutionally giving them.


Hey where are the Pizza,cokes and thngs like that you know what they feed kids at school.


----------



## where I want to

Declan said:


> Why does it matter which party is more charitable? I don't think that some kid should go hungry or feed themselves on dandelions and crickets just because their mom/dad may or may not be a deadbeat.
> 
> After seeing the big kerfuffle about this community allegedly being victimized and now to see people get all bent out of shape because people want to help the people in their actual real world community with something so fundamental as food is kind of depressing.


Except it's not a charity that got people "bent out of shape." It was one person saying they felt that simply giving would not get to the root of the problem and the responses getting ever more virulent, accusing people of all sorts of nastieness in an excess of anything actually written. People felt called on to defend themselves and the defense just raised more accusing.


----------



## 7thswan

Declan said:


> Actually gleanings are that which was not collected in the first harvest, not just what people do not need/want.


People don't even want the tons of extras I grow on my land unless I collect it it for them. The problem is people attatude ,noone wants to address the parents-probably because of the low expecatations of soft bigotry. They accept the parents being loosers and go arround that and just want to hand food directly to the children. No personal responsibility involved from the parents, it's a PC thing and I see right thru it.


----------



## watcher

Oxankle said:


> I've seen them come in with their welfare cards and buy groceries (not careful shopping, but still groceries) then haul out a chunk of cash to pay for their cartons of beer.
> 
> We taxpayers are such SUCKERS!!!!


Yep, burns me up to see someone with name brand goods on the check out belt and paying for it with MY MONEY while I'm buying generic with the rest of my money.


----------



## watcher

Old Vet said:


> Hey where are the Pizza,cokes and thngs like that you know what they feed kids at school.


Not now that Mrs O has taken control of the school lunch programs.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Could be, MO Cows. It's more likely it's simply because they perceive me as liberal, and therefore must be evil.


For what its worth.... I dont think of you as being evil or as a liberal. I do however think you may be a bit misguided as to the best solution to the problem. Nothing wrong with that either, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> Could be, MO Cows. It's more likely it's simply because they perceive me as liberal, and therefore must be evil.


No its because we're sick of the government throwing money at problems but never even looking to see what the root of the problem is, let alone come up with a plan to fix the cause rather than just treating the symptoms


----------



## Evons hubby

arabian knight said:


> Well if you consider 25 bucks a pound LOW then it has hit a all time low. LOL


That is pretty cheap.... I once spent nigh onto a grand for a lobster dinner.... of course I had to spend a month riding a motorcycle to Maine and back to get it.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is pretty cheap.... I once spent nigh onto a grand for a lobster dinner.... of course I had to spend a month riding a motorcycle to Maine and back to get it.


YH, if you went to ME for that, it was a Lobstah dinner. Just sayin.


----------



## where I want to

Tricky Grama said:


> YH, if you went to ME for that, it was a Lobstah dinner. Just sayin.


I thought is was lobstah dinneh. Or is that Massachusetts. ?.......


----------



## no really

You guys are making me hungry!!!


----------



## AmericanStand

Most food stamps go to working people and those disabled during their working lives. 
So are you saying that because the government choses to subsidize cheep labor for companies make larger profits the working man shouldn't enjoy a steak and beer ?


----------



## MO_cows

AmericanStand said:


> Most food stamps go to working people and those disabled during their working lives.
> So are you saying that because the government choses to subsidize cheep labor for companies make larger profits the working man shouldn't enjoy a steak and beer ?


Define "working people". There was a link to a study on here not too long ago which defined the "working poor" as a household where 1 person had a 10 hour a week job. Is that the "working man" you want to buy a steak and a beer with your tax dollars? Not me.


----------



## AmericanStand

Well he can't buy a beer with food stamps anyway. 
How many hours a week does someone have to make to deserve a steak and beer ?


----------



## no really

AmericanStand said:


> Well he can't buy a beer with food stamps anyway.
> How many hours a week does someone have to make to deserve a steak and beer ?


Why would anyone deserve a steak and a beer? You purchase what you can afford within your budget.


----------



## kuriakos

AmericanStand said:


> Well he can't buy a beer with food stamps anyway.
> How many hours a week does someone have to make to deserve a steak and beer ?


Enough hours to pay for his beer and steak himself. I've got no problem with helping people survive, but beer and steak are not necessities for survival.


----------



## po boy

kuriakos said:


> Enough hours to pay for his beer and steak himself. I've got no problem with helping people survive, but beer and steak are not necessities for survival.


You can get cash off your snap card and buy whatever you want. 

*How to get your cash benefits:*



At Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) displaying the QUEST Â® logo found at banks, credit unions, malls, grocery stores, gas stations, and convenience stores. 
At Point of Sale (POS) devices found at the checkout counter of participating stores. 
Get cash back with purchase from some stores. If you only need a small amount of cash, you can get it at most supermarkets for free.


----------



## mnn2501

AmericanStand said:


> How many hours a week does someone have to make to deserve a steak and beer ?


No one "deserves" any food. you work and then live within your income. You want more or better of anything, then improve yourself to get a raise or find a better paying job.

My dad lived through the Great Depression mainly on rice and corn bread, later in life (when he made a reasonable living) he wouldn't eat either, but he and his family survived and did not starve.

My parents and older siblings lived through WW2's rationed Meat-less, wheat-less and sweet-less days - no one starved.


----------



## Declan

7thswan said:


> People don't even want the tons of extras I grow on my land unless I collect it it for them. The problem is people attatude ,noone wants to address the parents-probably because of the low expecatations of soft bigotry. They accept the parents being loosers and go arround that and just want to hand food directly to the children. No personal responsibility involved from the parents, it's a PC thing and I see right thru it.


Next time run an ad in the paper and see who shows up.


----------



## AmericanStand

kuriakos said:


> Enough hours to pay for his beer and steak himself. I've got no problem with helping people survive, but beer and steak are not necessities for survival.






no really said:


> Why would anyone deserve a steak and a beer? You purchase what you can afford within your budget.



Then what's your problem with people buying beer and steaks with food stamps ?
Obviously it's within their budget. 
Do you understand that in lower paid jobs food stamps are part of the "benefits " package?
It's part of how the government entices people into working jobs at less than the cost of living. Thus subsidizing companies offering low wages. 
For those disabled on the job it's a part of their settlements.


----------



## kuriakos

> Then what's your problem with people buying beer and steaks with food stamps ?


They don't need beer and steak. I rarely have beer and steak myself. Why should I buy it for others?



> Obviously it's within their budget.


Obviously not, or they wouldn't need me to buy it for them.



> Do you understand that in lower paid jobs food stamps are part of the "benefits " package?
> It's part of how the government entices people into working jobs at less than the cost of living. Thus subsidizing companies offering low wages.
> For those disabled on the job it's a part of their settlements.


Mostly nonsense, but partly true. I'm all for cutting off the corporate welfare disguised as individual welfare.

But none of this is really relevant to feeding children anyway. They aren't working low wage jobs, they aren't personally getting SNAP, and they're not allowed to buy beer.


----------



## Patchouli

po boy said:


> I believe food stamps pays $5 per day per individual. That's not hard to do and I do it day in and day out.
> 
> It's hard to believe that local food pantries do not exist in most communities. My experience is that they are begging for people to come get free food and they are well equipped.


You need to send some of that excess food here then. We have one food pantry for the whole county and they are always asking for donations. 

According to the government website the average family on SNAP gets $443 per month. That works out to $3.69 per person per day. If your family lives in an area with limited and very expensive groceries you will definitely run short of food. Even if you have a Walmart and a car you will be pushing it and not eating terribly nutritious food.


----------



## Patchouli

po boy said:


> Wow, they had mass transit, food processors and cars way back then!


:facepalm: People grew edible grains not animal feed, everyone was surrounded by farms and you could easily walk to your closest field to glean from. Everyone also turned in 10% of their increase and that went to the Temple which then redistributed it to the poor and needy. So if you have given a 10th of all you grow to your local food pantry and you let the poor and needy into your garden to glean and you pay 10% of your income to cover those in need then you can complain about the government taxing you.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Declan said:


> Next time run an ad in the paper and see who shows up.


Well, there ya go, no illiterates would show.


----------



## po boy

Patchouli said:


> :facepalm: People grew *edible grains not animal feed*, everyone was surrounded by farms and you could easily walk to your closest field to glean from. Everyone also turned in 10% of their increase and that went to the Temple which then redistributed it to the poor and needy. So if you have given a 10th of all you grow to your local food pantry and you let the poor and needy into your garden to glean and you pay 10% of your income to cover those in need then *you can* complain about the government taxing you.


Wow, we are eating animal feed!

Thanks, but I'll complain when *I* feel the need to complain!


----------



## AmericanStand

Patchouli said:


> :facepalm: People grew edible grains not animal feed, .



You seem to feel there are a lot of grains that are fit for animals but not people , I'd like to know what they are ?


----------



## AmericanStand

kuriakos said:


> They don't need beer and steak. I rarely have beer and steak myself. Why should I buy it for others?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not, or they wouldn't need me to buy it for them..



You are right , no one needs beer and steak but since a family of 4 can have a cash income of near $40,000 and still get food stamps perhaps their taxes help support you in a way they don't like ?


----------



## po boy

Patchouli said:


> You need to send some of that excess food here then. We have one food pantry for the whole county and they are always asking for donations.
> 
> According to the government website the average family on SNAP gets $443 per month. That works out to $3.69 per person per day. If your family lives in an area with limited and very expensive groceries you will definitely run short of food. Even if you have a Walmart and a car you will be pushing it and not eating *terribly nutritious food*.


$413 per USDA and average family size of 3.2 people. That's $4.61 per person per day. Since these are averages some get more and some get less depending on the family income.

*terribly nutritious food**??? *

Someone's already pointed out some examples. No reason it can't be nutritious. Right now you can buy 10 to 15 pounds of potatoes for 3 to 5 dollars. A large bag of potato chips is over $3. I know an upscale store that sells a 50lb bag for $10.00 and large bags of carrots for a few bucks. I see fresh corn for 20 or 30 cents an ear. Day in and day out I can buy boneless chicken and pork loins for under $2.00 pound. Today, I bought fish filets for $2.50. 

Yep, I know some folks don't have a car. The small town I just moved from had public transportation and they would take someone anywhere in the county for a $1. There's something like that here as I see the vans and buses. I imagine a lot of folks on SNAP have neighbors also on SNAP. Some may have a car and could car pool and split up them taters.


----------



## po boy

AmericanStand said:


> You are right , no one needs beer and steak but since a family of 4 can have a cash income of near *$40,000* and still get food stamps perhaps their taxes help support you in a way they don't like ?


Hadn't looked at the numbers. Wonder if they get close to $5 per day per person....


----------



## Patchouli

AmericanStand said:


> You seem to feel there are a lot of grains that are fit for animals but not people , I'd like to know what they are ?


For general nutritional purposes that field corn and those soybeans won't be very helpful to the average American will they? In order to process them into something humans eat you will need a lot of time know how and equipment. Most of them go to animal feeds or highly processed foods like oils or are chemically broken down into things like lecithin. Sugar beets aren't very useful either. Wheat straight from the field requires the same amount of equipment, know how and time to process.


----------



## Patchouli

po boy said:


> $413 per USDA and average family size of 3.2 people. That's $4.61 per person per day. Since these are averages some get more and some get less depending on the family income.
> 
> *terribly nutritious food**??? *
> 
> Someone's already pointed out some examples. No reason it can't be nutritious. Right now you can buy 10 to 15 pounds of potatoes for 3 to 5 dollars. A large bag of potato chips is over $3. I know an upscale store that sells a 50lb bag for $10.00 and large bags of carrots for a few bucks. I see fresh corn for 20 or 30 cents an ear. Day in and day out I can buy boneless chicken and pork loins for under $2.00 pound. Today, I bought fish filets for $2.50.
> 
> Yep, I know some folks don't have a car. The small town I just moved from had public transportation and they would take someone anywhere in the county for a $1. There's something like that here as I see the vans and buses. I imagine a lot of folks on SNAP have neighbors also on SNAP. Some may have a car and could car pool and split up them taters.


I don't know where you are shopping but I haven't seen boneless chicken breasts or pork loin for under $2 a pound in years. Even at Walmart.


----------



## painterswife

Patchouli said:


> I don't know where you are shopping but I haven't seen boneless chicken breasts or pork loin for under $2 a pound in years. Even at Walmart.


Zaycon 1.69 or 1.59 right now for bonless chicken breasts in bulk


----------



## kuriakos

AmericanStand said:


> You are right , no one needs beer and steak but since a family of 4 can have a cash income of near $40,000 and still get food stamps perhaps their taxes help support you in a way they don't like ?


Certainly not. I support my own family.


----------



## arabian knight

Patchouli said:


> You need to send some of that excess food here then. We have one food pantry for the whole county and they are always asking for donations.


 Well when they may go out to say churches to Give that food away stop those that DON"T NEED the food.
I have a close elderly lady friend that helps out when "Feed The People" truck goes around and sets up, and she brings back to HER HOUSE BOXES FULL of food~! She is someone that DON'T NEED IT AT ALL.. She has offered me so much I could not even eat it all and have refused the food the next few times she wants to give me some. 
And I KNOW she doesn't need it~!!
She lives in her own house PAID FOR too. Her husband died a few years ago, but he was pretty well off after retiring from Uniroyal tire.
She has shown horses all over this country and still judges horse shows, so she gets plenty at doing that.
She has a nice 4 year old PU, and smaller 4x4 car, plus a tandem horse trailer with dressing room, she just sold their Motorhome~! 
Up until a year ago she still owned and shown her registered palomino horses.
She has money invested in many places making her a nice income.
I remember one time her husband was a Day Trader for a spell, and one year they PAID OVER 35,000 IN TAXES~!!!!!! So there are PLENTY that go to Food Pantries and TAKE tons of food AWAY from people that REALLY need it~!
THAT IS WHY so many do NOT give to such places anymore~!!!!!!!!
They ARE NOT stopping ANYBODY form getting food. So many just come there and Take and Take and TAKE because it is FREE~!


----------



## po boy

Patchouli said:


> I don't know where you are shopping but I haven't seen boneless chicken breasts or pork loin for under $2 a pound in years. Even at Walmart.


Local Walmart's daily price is under $2. Kroger sells pork loins on sale for $1.99 and frequently have boneless breast or thighs on sale from $1.99 to $2.49. The two grocers nearest me are independents and run boneless chicken under $2 and boneless beef roast in the $3.50 range (Chuck, Round). Just looked at an ad, eye of round $3.49, 10 pound bag of Chicken leg quarters, 49 cents a pound and 85% ground beef $3.99. Cubed pork on sale at about $2.50, makes a good sandwich on a bun.


----------



## MO_cows

Patchouli said:


> I don't know where you are shopping but I haven't seen boneless chicken breasts or pork loin for under $2 a pound in years. Even at Walmart.


Sam's. $1.88 last time I checked. I have split chicken breast in the freezer that was .99 a pound at Hy Vee. A sale they seem to run a couple times a year. Doesn't take long to make them boneless/skinless if that's what I want, then the remains go in the stock pot.


----------



## arabian knight

And then you run across this:

*Woman who was fired for feeding hungry students *



> Della Curry was fired from her job as a kitchen manager at a Colorado elementary school for giving free lunches to hungry students. While Curry acknowledges that she broke the school district&#8217;s policy, she says she would do it again, "In a heartbeat."


http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/woman-who-was-fired-for-feeding-hungry-students-speaks-out/vi-BBkW90W


----------



## Patchouli

painterswife said:


> Zaycon 1.69 or 1.59 right now for bonless chicken breasts in bulk


You have to buy 40 lbs at a shot though for that price. Most people in deep poverty don't have the storage space or the $67.60 to buy it. And they don't have a Zaycon here. Not even sure how they work, it's doesn't appear to be a grocery store?


----------



## MO_cows

Patchouli said:


> You need to send some of that excess food here then. We have one food pantry for the whole county and they are always asking for donations.
> 
> According to the government website the average family on SNAP gets $443 per month. That works out to $3.69 per person per day. If your family lives in an area with limited and very expensive groceries you will definitely run short of food. Even if you have a Walmart and a car you will be pushing it and not eating terribly nutritious food.


Again, SNAP is a supplement and was never intended to be the entire food budget. But even if it were, you can feed the family basic, wholesome food for that budget and meet their nutrition needs. Peasant food that people have thrived on for thousands of years. No you won't be eating a nice boneless skinless chicken breast per person, with organic quinoa and fresh veggies on the side, for dinner. More like beans n rice/beans n cornbread, potato soup, cabbage soup, etc. And the family that gets $443 all at once has an advantage over the family that gets a paycheck a week and only a small portion of it to spend on food. The SNAP family can bulk buy and make it go even farther.

That is too bad there is a shortage of food banks. It takes a lot of time and dedication to run one, and volunteers are few and far between. Not easy to get one started but it can be done.


----------



## AmericanStand

kuriakos said:


> Certainly not. I support my own family.



Really ? And you use NOTHING the government provides ?


----------



## painterswife

Patchouli said:


> You have to buy 40 lbs at a shot though for that price. Most people in deep poverty don't have the storage space or the $67.60 to buy it. And they don't have a Zaycon here. Not even sure how they work, it's doesn't appear to be a grocery store?


I agree but I can also get it at my local grocery store for 1.79 a pound if I watch the sales.


----------



## AmericanStand

Patchouli said:


> For general nutritional purposes that field corn and those soybeans won't be very helpful to the average American will they? In order to process them into something humans eat you will need a lot of time know how and equipment. .



You mean a frying pan ?
Or perhaps two rocks ?
Yep hi tech stuff. 

OPPS fire I forgot fire.


----------



## Patchouli

MO_cows said:


> Sam's. $1.88 last time I checked. I have split chicken breast in the freezer that was .99 a pound at Hy Vee. A sale they seem to run a couple times a year. Doesn't take long to make them boneless/skinless if that's what I want, then the remains go in the stock pot.


So at Sam's you have to buy a membership and buy in bulk. No Hy Vees around here either. I just did my groceries today and I went to 3 different stores. I didn't see anything for under $3.


----------



## Patchouli

MO_cows said:


> Again, SNAP is a supplement and was never intended to be the entire food budget. But even if it were, you can feed the family basic, wholesome food for that budget and meet their nutrition needs. Peasant food that people have thrived on for thousands of years. No you won't be eating a nice boneless skinless chicken breast per person, with organic quinoa and fresh veggies on the side, for dinner. More like beans n rice/beans n cornbread, potato soup, cabbage soup, etc. And the family that gets $443 all at once has an advantage over the family that gets a paycheck a week and only a small portion of it to spend on food. The SNAP family can bulk buy and make it go even farther.
> 
> That is too bad there is a shortage of food banks. It takes a lot of time and dedication to run one, and volunteers are few and far between. Not easy to get one started but it can be done.


If you read my post lost somewhere in this boondoggle you know I have lived at the bottom and fed a family of 5 on nothing. And cooking from scratch and all of that. I still fell short at times.


----------



## Patchouli

AmericanStand said:


> You mean a frying pan ?
> Or perhaps two rocks ?
> Yep hi tech stuff.
> 
> OPPS fire I forgot fire.


I assume you are being facetious.


----------



## watcher

AmericanStand said:


> Well he can't buy a beer with food stamps anyway.


You might want to rephrase that. He can't _legally_ buy a beer with food stamps. I can tell you that you can buy beer and a LOT of other things you are not supposed to be able to buy with them.

Its fairly simple, you go into a store that sells food stamp eligible items and beer. You take your $10 worth of beer up to the counter and the guy behind the counter rings up $15 dollars worth of bread, milk and such. You swipe your get it free card and you get your beer and he makes an extra $5 on the sale.


----------



## JeffreyD

AmericanStand said:


> Really ? And you use NOTHING the government provides ?


Not really sure what that has to do with anything, but, i use what I pay for. Much less actually! Yet the government insists on taking far more of our money than is necessary, to pay for things that will buy more votes.


----------



## watcher

mnn2501 said:


> No one "deserves" any food. you work and then live within your income. You want more or better of anything, then improve yourself to get a raise or find a better paying job.
> 
> My dad lived through the Great Depression mainly on rice and corn bread, later in life (when he made a reasonable living) he wouldn't eat either, but he and his family survived and did not starve.
> 
> My parents and older siblings lived through WW2's rationed Meat-less, wheat-less and sweet-less days - no one starved.


My dad wouldn't only not eat rice he would not even let it be cooked in the house. But his aversion to came from his time in the Army. He claimed he ate nothing but rice for almost four months at one time. Never found out if that was true but I know we never had it on our table.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> You need to send some of that excess food here then. We have one food pantry for the whole county and they are always asking for donations.
> 
> According to the government website the average family on SNAP gets $443 per month. That works out to $3.69 per person per day. If your family lives in an area with limited and very expensive groceries you will definitely run short of food. Even if you have a Walmart and a car you will be pushing it and not eating terribly nutritious food.


I call hogwash on this. The USDA's on website tells you a family of 4 are eligible for $649.

Read back in this thread and you will find a post from me with REAL numbers taken either from walmart.com or from my own buying data showing that you can buy enough nutritious food to feed that family of four for, IIRC, less than half that amount.


----------



## po boy

Patchouli said:


> So at Sam's you have to buy a membership and buy in bulk. No Hy Vees around here either.* I just did my groceries today and I went to 3 different stores.* I didn't see anything for under $3.


Sams sells meats the same way as most grocers. Some will be in family type packs, but nothing like bulk.

Look at their ads on line or subscribe.
The prices I quoted are sale prices. Anytime I go into a grocery store, I look for mark downs and get some good buys


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> I don't know where you are shopping but I haven't seen boneless chicken breasts or pork loin for under $2 a pound in years. Even at Walmart.


I bought two large packs of boneless skinless chicken breast last week and paid $1.99/pound. IIRC, I paid $2.57/pound for mixed pork chops and paid under $2/pound for a pork butt.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> You have to buy 40 lbs at a shot though for that price. Most people in deep poverty don't have the storage space or the $67.60 to buy it. And they don't have a Zaycon here. Not even sure how they work, it's doesn't appear to be a grocery store?


There were about 8 to 10 in each pack I bought for $1.99/pound. I fit it all in the little freezer in my side by side icebox.


----------



## watcher

AmericanStand said:


> Really ? And you use NOTHING the government provides ?


The government provides nothing because it produces nothing. It can only take from one person/group and give to another. What it can use what it takes for is supposed to be limited by the constitution to a very small group of things and all of those things are supposed to be able to provide for the GENERAL welfare. Feeding an individual is providing for the general welfare like building a private road for one individual and only that individual to use.


----------



## MO_cows

Patchouli said:


> If you read my post lost somewhere in this boondoggle you know I have lived at the bottom and fed a family of 5 on nothing. And cooking from scratch and all of that. I still fell short at times.


Yes and we've had a lean stretch too. DH still complains when I make rice because we ate so much of it at that time! But I still don't want to send $100 to Washington to have the bureaucracy siphon off $80 and only $20 actually go to help someone, who may or may not really need it. We have and will continue to help people we know, or donate within our community. We even bought a freakin' house for someone we love, down on their luck! So don't think I have a heart of stone. I just think the private sector will always be more efficient and effective than the bureaucracy.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> So at Sam's you have to buy a membership and buy in bulk. No Hy Vees around here either. I just did my groceries today and I went to 3 different stores. I didn't see anything for under $3.


I don't know where in AR you live but according to their website Kroger in Little Rock has a 3# bag of frozen chicken breast for $6.99 (that's $2.33/lbs) and fresh is usually cheaper. They also have boneless pork loin for $1.88/lbs.


----------



## kuriakos

AmericanStand said:


> Really ? And you use NOTHING the government provides ?


Did I say that? I use no more than the average citizen, less than those on welfare, and pay much more than most people pay.

I don't know what point you're trying to make but it's annoying that you're going after me just because I'm not generous enough to cheerfully but involuntarily buy poor people beer and steak.


----------



## wr

watcher said:


> My dad wouldn't only not eat rice he would not even let it be cooked in the house. But his aversion to came from his time in the Army. He claimed he ate nothing but rice for almost four months at one time. Never found out if that was true but I know we never had it on our table.


I went through a tough patch shortly after I moved to the city and all I could afford was a couple dozen eggs a week for about 6 months and in the last 35 years, I think I've eaten no more than a half dozen eggs and I'd be quite happy to live the rest of my life without them.


----------



## Patchouli

watcher said:


> I call hogwash on this. The USDA's on website tells you a family of 4 are eligible for $649.
> 
> Read back in this thread and you will find a post from me with REAL numbers taken either from walmart.com or from my own buying data showing that you can buy enough nutritious food to feed that family of four for, IIRC, less than half that amount.


http://www.cbpp.org/research/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits

You posted max and I posted average. 

I buy groceries every 2 weeks and I have fed a family of 5 so I know how much food costs thanks.


----------



## Patchouli

MO_cows said:


> Yes and we've had a lean stretch too. DH still complains when I make rice because we ate so much of it at that time! But I still don't want to send $100 to Washington to have the bureaucracy siphon off $80 and only $20 actually go to help someone, who may or may not really need it. We have and will continue to help people we know, or donate within our community. We even bought a freakin' house for someone we love, down on their luck! So don't think I have a heart of stone. I just think the private sector will always be more efficient and effective than the bureaucracy.


This whole thread was about donating. Not government hand-outs. It keeps getting hijacked and I admit I got side tracked too. My post was about how a person can come up short and their kids can still need help even if they are trying hard and doing everything right.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Declan said:


> Why does it matter which party is more charitable? I don't think that some kid should go hungry or feed themselves on dandelions and crickets just because their mom/dad may or may not be a deadbeat.
> 
> After seeing the big kerfuffle about this community allegedly being victimized and now to see people get all bent out of shape because people want to help the people in their actual real world community with something so fundamental as food is kind of depressing.


Yes, it is. It's sad too.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> Except it's not a charity that got people "bent out of shape." It was one person saying they felt that simply giving would not get to the root of the problem and the responses getting ever more virulent, accusing people of all sorts of nastieness in an excess of anything actually written. People felt called on to defend themselves and the defense just raised more accusing.


Again, there may be a bit of you reading more into my posts than I really said. Which is fine, but it's not when you read what you want and then accuse me of things I never said. 

My dismay over people that would let a kid go hungry over something their parent did is not being excessively or virulent nasty. The drama of the words you chose gives a very clear picture tho.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> For what its worth.... I dont think of you as being evil or as a liberal. I do however think you may be a bit misguided as to the best solution to the problem. Nothing wrong with that either, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to post it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> No its because we're sick of the government throwing money at problems but never even looking to see what the root of the problem is, let alone come up with a plan to fix the cause rather than just treating the symptoms


Oh, I see. So that's why you (a collective you) attacked me because I posted a reminder that kids could go hungry in the summer? The real point of the rants and pointed postings were that you're mad at the government?

Good to know. smh.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> You are right , no one needs beer and steak but since a family of 4 can have a cash income of near $40,000 and still get food stamps perhaps their taxes help support you in a way they don't like ?


But, even if they actually paid any income taxes after such stuff as earned income credits or child care credits, still getting more than those not qualifying for benefits.......


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, there may be a bit of you reading more into my posts than I really said. Which is fine, but it's not when you read what you want and then accuse me of things I never said.
> 
> My dismay over people that would let a kid go hungry over something their parent did is not being excessively or virulent nasty. The drama of the words you chose gives a very clear picture tho.


So, stop bashing people with "your dismay" that they want hungry children, among other personal insults, just because they question your assumptions. That would stop people from "reading into" what you keep clearly repeating.
Insulting people you are asking to donate to a charity seldom works well.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> So, stop bashing people with "your dismay" that they want hungry children, among other personal insults, just because they question your assumptions. That would stop people from "reading into" what you keep clearly repeating.
> Insulting people you are asking to donate to a charity seldom works well.


Your posts seem to be more about complaining about what people are posting than about the actual topics. We get you don't like some people. We get that you don't like what they post or how they post it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> So, stop bashing people with "your dismay" that they want hungry children, among other personal insults, just because they question your assumptions. That would stop people from "reading into" what you keep clearly repeating.
> Insulting people you are asking to donate to a charity seldom works well.


Please stop posting your interpretation of my posts as something I said.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> Please stop posting your interruption of my posts as something I said.


An optical illusion? You didn't really write "dismay over people that let a kid go hungry...." or just that you did not think it an insult. 

I loved the part about "interrupting". Finely tuned snarkiness.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> An optical illusion? You didn't really write "dismay over people that let a kid go hungry...." or just that you did not think it an insult.
> 
> I loved the part about "interrupting". Finely tuned snarkiness.


I do believe that you may have missed the "my" in that sentence. I am allowed to feel dismay, am I not?


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> An optical illusion? You didn't really write "dismay over people that let a kid go hungry...." or just that you did not think it an insult.
> 
> I loved the part about "interrupting". Finely tuned snarkiness.


Or it was an oversight from autocorrect. I corrected as soon as I realized the error. Perfect example of you reading something into my post that wasn't there- you couldn't even quote it because I corrected it so quickly. 

ETA at 9:59 am EST I'm done with this as it's not constructive and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of hungry kids.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> I do believe that you may have missed the "my" in that sentence. I am allowed to feel dismay, am I not?


And I'm allowed to object to your assumption, am I not? Wait- no I'm not- that means that I want children to be "food insecure", whatever that means. It's such a useful term for those demanding more while never accounting for their current ineffectiveness.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> And I'm allowed to object to your assumption, am I not? Wait- no I'm not- that means that I want children to be "food insecure", whatever that means. It's such a useful term for those demanding more while never accounting for their current ineffectiveness.


Great googly moogly. It means you _choose_ to read that I want people to feel guilt over food insecure kids. That is your issue, not mine, do not project it onto my posts.

10:06 PM EST. Done. Done. Done. Will not be baited into anymore of this.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> Or it was an oversight from autocorrect. I corrected as soon as I realized the error. Perfect example of you reading something into my post that wasn't there- you couldn't even quote it because I corrected it so quickly.
> 
> ETA at 9:59 am EST I'm done with this as it's not constructive and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of hungry kids.


Either is was a mistake (auto correct?) or it was written as meant. No interpretation required, over or spot on, no matter how often you insist otherwise. I'm perceptive but not clairvoyant so I simply read what you write. And frankly either way is still meant to say that someone wants hungry children just because they express some doubt over your assumptions- and because most people do not hold that value and have said so, you mean to insult them by insisting on it.
Which I'm sure you will now deny you every said again while making sure to repeat it. Usually in the same paragraph. I believe it is your recreational sport.


----------



## where I want to

I've got work I need to go do. We can continue the ride on the merry go round later.


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> But, even if they actually paid any income taxes after such stuff as earned income credits or child care credits, still getting more than those not qualifying for benefits.......



My point was about the working man, that $40,000 is about the best working man job in this area. So you have a guy working lots of hours and overtime and some here don't seem to think he deserves a steak and a beer once in a while. When he can afford it in his budget. 
Remember it's just free inter prize to get those food stamps since his competitors in the job market can get them too.


----------



## nostawmama

I would like to make some clarifying points on how the food stamp program works for those that are using it without falsifying information.

The max benefit for a family of 4 is 649/mo, yes you can eat fairly well, in many areas, with that per month. However, any income you make will reduce the amount of FS that you are eligible for, so if you go get a part time job so you can pay for things like car insurance, you loose FS$. If your part-time job cannot cover the cost of the car insurance plus the lost cost of FS then you are "making" less money with the job and have less money for food. 
I can see where having a food bank or other option to make up some of the difference would be helpful in feeding the family that wants to get back on their feet.

Also, to the poster that mentioned getting "cash benefits" from a FS card- it is 2 different programs attached to the card. If you get SNAP benefits you are only supposed to be able to buy food, you can't withdraw cash or get cash back at the register. If you are on "cash assistance" that is a different program that uses the same card and yes you can then use the card as a prepaid debit and get cash.


----------



## where I want to

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility

If anyone wants to figure it out. It's rather complicated, especially when you get into what is excluded and included income.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> ETA at 9:59 am EST I'm done with this as it's not constructive and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of hungry kids.


Actually you said you were 'out of here' 7 or 8 pages ago.


----------



## mnn2501

So if my nephew (who has never missed a meal in his life) who is staying with us next week, opens my 'filled to the max' fridge and pantry and then says 'There's nothing to eat' he's officially 'food insecure' according to the government?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> Actually you said you were 'out of here' 7 or 8 pages ago.


I'm sorry you misunderstood the addition I made to my post. I was referring to the "back and forth" with Where I Want To. I check out of arguments when someone *interprets* my words into something they want to hear rather than what I actually said, I'm funny that way. I do when I'm personally attacked too. It just makes sense to me.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> So if my nephew (who has never missed a meal in his life) who is staying with us next week, opens my 'filled to the max' fridge and pantry and then says 'There's nothing to eat' he's officially 'food insecure' according to the government?


Please see post #67 in the thread Does Providing Free Lunch for Kids Foster Dependency? on the politics forum. This has been addressed.


----------



## kuriakos

AmericanStand said:


> My point was about the working man, that $40,000 is about the best working man job in this area. So you have a guy working lots of hours and overtime and some here don't seem to think he deserves a steak and a beer once in a while. When he can afford it in his budget.
> Remember it's just free inter prize to get those food stamps since his competitors in the job market can get them too.


Your skewed version of free enterprise is lacking in both freedom and enterprise. The contributors are not free to decide whether to contribute or not. And of course enterprise generally refers to some type of effort.


----------



## Evons hubby

kuriakos said:


> Your skewed version of free enterprise is lacking in both freedom and enterprise. The contributors are not free to decide whether to contribute or not. And of course enterprise generally refers to some type of effort.


Its a lot of effort to apply for gov benefits.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> http://www.cbpp.org/research/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits
> 
> You posted max and I posted average.


But I showed you could feed a family of 4 on less than half of that max.



Patchouli said:


> I buy groceries every 2 weeks and I have fed a family of 5 so I know how much food costs thanks.


But that cost depends on WHAT you buy? I can spend $300 and get a weeks worth of food for 2 if I wanted. Or I could spend $300 and get an entire month's worth of food for 4. And everyone would have full bellies and fine nutritious meals. That's my point.


----------



## Patchouli

watcher said:


> But I showed you could feed a family of 4 on less than half of that max.
> 
> 
> 
> But that cost depends on WHAT you buy? I can spend $300 and get a weeks worth of food for 2 if I wanted. Or I could spend $300 and get an entire month's worth of food for 4. And everyone would have full bellies and fine nutritious meals. That's my point.


I looked back through your posts and I don't see one about feeding a family of 4.


----------



## nostawmama

Patchouli said:


> I looked back through your posts and I don't see one about feeding a family of 4.


page 32 post #629


----------



## nchobbyfarm

nostawmama said:


> Also, to the poster that mentioned getting "cash benefits" from a FS card- it is 2 different programs attached to the card. If you get SNAP benefits you are only supposed to be able to buy food, you can't withdraw cash or get cash back at the register.


This depends solely on the honesty of the store owner, cashier or both. I have watched it work to get cash or not approved items many times at $.50 on the $1.


----------



## nostawmama

nchobbyfarm said:


> This depends solely on the honesty of the store owner, cashier or both. I have watched it work to get cash or not approved items many times at $.50 on the $1.


I understand that it is abused- that was why I tried to clarify that I was speaking of how it is used honestly- not with false info or fraudulent intentions. 
I can attest to the fact that, although people seem to think otherwise, not every single person on FS is using them to get cash by selling them at a discount! 

The system has problems and sometimes they make it easy to commit the fraud, the honor system just doesn't hold up in the real world.


----------



## AmericanStand

kuriakos said:


> Your skewed version of free enterprise is lacking in both freedom and enterprise. The contributors are not free to decide whether to contribute or not. And of course enterprise generally refers to some type of effort.



You are seldom free to decide what portions of government you support. The government subsidizes The business's they like.


----------



## kuriakos

AmericanStand said:


> You are seldom free to decide what portions of government you support. The government subsidizes The business's they like.


Of course. But most of us don't call that free enterprise.


----------



## AmericanStand

Patchouli said:


> I assume you are being facetious.



No not in the least. I've done this. Slow roast soybeans and you will get oil and a nice nut. 
Mix dent corn with wood ash for hominy beat it with a rock for cornflakes beat it some more for corn meal throw it in the fire for popcorn. 
Honest it's that simple.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> I looked back through your posts and I don't see one about feeding a family of 4.


I'll look for it. I posted here and in the thread in politics.


----------



## watcher

nostawmama said:


> page 32 post #629


Thanks. I don't have a good handle on the search engine for here.


----------



## TxHorseMom

Here's the thing. There are hungry children out there. Donate to your local food bank. Or don't. It's up to you.


----------



## po boy

I am not denying there are hungry children and try do what I can when *I see* a need.

Tears


----------



## Irish Pixie

TxHorseMom said:


> Here's the thing. There are hungry children out there. Donate to your local food bank. Or don't. It's up to you.


Exactly. After 729 posts I still don't understand why people don't get it's completely and totally voluntary.


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. After 729 posts I still don't understand why people don't get it's completely and totally voluntary.


If it were voluntary that would be one thing. But its NOT. The government is mandating breakfast and lunch for all students here in Dallas - guess whose tax dollars are spent for that?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mnn2501 said:


> If it were voluntary that would be one thing. But its NOT. The government is mandating breakfast and lunch for all students here in Dallas - guess whose tax dollars are spent for that?


Clearly I was referring to the program I started this thread about... which is donation, and voluntary. I was responding to TxHorseMom's post, which I quoted.


----------



## arabian knight

mnn2501 said:


> If it were voluntary that would be one thing. But its NOT. The government is mandating breakfast and lunch for all students here in Dallas - guess whose tax dollars are spent for that?


 Sure most ALL programs that give away food have at least SOME government money in them. And there lies the rubby bud dud in the tubby of nonsense.


----------



## AmericanStand

That's a red herring at this point almost EVERY thing in the USA has some government money in them.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. After 729 posts I still don't understand why people don't get it's completely and totally voluntary.


So many reasons- people do understand but that it is a charity became a side issue fast. It became an alternate venue for the continuing debate about government largess because of the history of the posters and the assumption of the charity itself. The posters then reinforced what the "true" issue was by using the exact same responses that they would use if a government law or regulation was involved ('liberal bashing' and 'personal responsibility')
In fact, very idea promulgated by the same advocate/lobbyists involved of "children being hungry" because the school system is on break from feeding them has built into it that parents are not going to feed the kids so everyone else needs to do so. And not to do so is wrong. There is plenty of room for debate on that subject.
Now, if the charity had been an organization that did not have the assumption that it is a public duty to act in the place of government failure to ensure continuous benefits, this would not be the same discussion. And both pro and anti posters know this is true for they both used the same arguments that they would in an argument over government's place.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> That's a red herring at this point almost EVERY thing in the USA has some government money in them.


So many government grants are to pay for advertisements to promote "awareness" of issues. And those translate to creating a demand for both the charity and government services. Who are not totally unbiased by the fact their income comes from that demand.


----------



## Evons hubby

AmericanStand said:


> No not in the least. I've done this. Slow roast soybeans and you will get oil and a nice nut.
> Mix dent corn with wood ash for hominy beat it with a rock for cornflakes beat it some more for corn meal throw it in the fire for popcorn.
> Honest it's that simple.


I have made hominy.... and it aint quite that simple. The wood ash produces lye which is not necessarily a good thing for ones digestive tract. I always rinsed my hominy with at least six rounds of fresh water after boiling it in the lye water. I also extracted the lye to be used separately instead of mixing the wood ashes in with the corn.


----------



## watcher

TxHorseMom said:


> Here's the thing. There are hungry children out there. Donate to your local food bank. Or don't. It's up to you.


I have problems donating to food banks. The main one is food banks give food to anyone who walks in the door. They don't ask why there's a shortage of food, heck many don't even ask if there *IS* a shortage of food. Giving food to someone who doesn't have the knowledge to budget their resources is just putting a band-aid on a festering wound. 

I donate to groups who counsel people who come in seeking help. They sit down with them one on one and find out what's going on and what the person in need can do to correct the problem. A lot of the time people with food shortage problems are that way because no one ever showed them how to cook. They think the only way to get mashed potatoes is from a box and soup only comes in little red and white cans. Its really sad the number of people who truly do not know how to cook


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Clearly I was referring to the program I started this thread about... which is donation, and voluntary. I was responding to TxHorseMom's post, which I quoted.


There is one thing. Most people don't see why they need/should give money to solve a problem the government is already forcibly taking money from them to solve. When you are just making it yourself and look at your total tax burden its hard to want to give more to people who already are or could be living off YOUR hard work.

As I have pointed out it roils me when I see some with a shopping cart full of name brand items and they whip out their SNAP card to pay for it when I'm standing there with a cart full of generic stuff because I have to squeeze every penny until Abe cries uncle. It can almost put me over the edge when I notice a full calf tatt which is so new they are still coating it with A&D cream.


----------



## po boy

watcher said:


> There is one thing. Most people don't see why they need/should give money to solve a problem the government is already forcibly taking money from them to solve. When you are just making it yourself and look at your total tax burden its hard to want to give more to people who already are or could be living off YOUR hard work.
> 
> As I have pointed out it roils me when I see some with a shopping cart full of name brand items and they whip out their SNAP card to pay for it when I'm standing there with a cart full of generic stuff because I have to squeeze every penny until Abe cries uncle. It can almost put me over the edge when I notice a full calf tatt which is so new they are still coating it with A&D cream.


I was behind her in the store a few days ago. Bunch of tats, I bought discounted green bell peppers and she bought a pack of multi colored peppers on my dime!


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> There is one thing. Most people don't see why they need/should give money to solve a problem the government is already forcibly taking money from them to solve. When you are just making it yourself and look at your total tax burden its hard to want to give more to people who already are or could be living off YOUR hard work.


My money, right? We worked hard, were responsible, and have enough to give rather than be bitter about those that have less.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> My money, right? We worked hard, were responsible, and have enough to give rather than be bitter about those that have less.


You clearly are not reading what I write. I'm not bitter about those who have less than me (I don't know many who do actually have less as in stuff but how I live is a choice). Nor do I feel sorry for or pity them. 

I'm not bitter at anyone. I'm upset.

I'm upset at those who think they know what's good for others and decide that I have too much and take it from me via taxes and give it directly to someone who THEY think needs it more. 

I'm upset at those who think they deserve to be given my hard earned money just because they are breathing and 'life has been unfair' to them.

I'm upset at those who keep people dependent instead of doing what needs to be done to make them independent.

I'm upset at those who think they can fix things by tossing _things_ them and ignoring the roots of those things.

I'm upset that a once mighty nation of robust individualist who had the wherewithal to make some of the greatest conquest in history has been made impotent and full of whiners who think they should have anything they want just because they are here.


----------



## AmericanStand

YH You are quite correct of course that's a good way to do it. Perhaps the best.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> You clearly are not reading what I write. I'm not bitter about those who have less than me (I don't know many who do actually have less as in stuff but how I live is a choice). Nor do I feel sorry for or pity them.
> 
> I'm not bitter at anyone. I'm upset.
> 
> I'm upset at those who think they know what's good for others and decide that I have too much and take it from me via taxes and give it directly to someone who THEY think needs it more.
> 
> I'm upset at those who think they deserve to be given my hard earned money just because they are breathing and 'life has been unfair' to them.
> 
> I'm upset at those who keep people dependent instead of doing what needs to be done to make them independent.
> 
> I'm upset at those who think they can fix things by tossing _things_ them and ignoring the roots of those things.
> 
> I'm upset that a once mighty nation of robust individualist who had the wherewithal to make some of the greatest conquest in history has been made impotent and full of whiners who think they should have anything they want just because they are here.


And you have every right to feel the way you do, but don't attack me for donating my time to something I believe in. I believe there shouldn't be a hungry kid in this country and I actually *DO* something about it rather than fuss and complain.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> I have problems donating to food banks. The main one is food banks give food to anyone who walks in the door. They don't ask why there's a shortage of food, heck many don't even ask if there *IS* a shortage of food. Giving food to someone who doesn't have the knowledge to budget their resources is just putting a band-aid on a festering wound.
> 
> I donate to groups who counsel people who come in seeking help. They sit down with them one on one and find out what's going on and what the person in need can do to correct the problem. A lot of the time people with food shortage problems are that way because no one ever showed them how to cook. They think the only way to get mashed potatoes is from a box and soup only comes in little red and white cans. Its really sad the number of people who truly do not know how to cook


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> You clearly are not reading what I write. I'm not bitter about those who have less than me (I don't know many who do actually have less as in stuff but how I live is a choice). Nor do I feel sorry for or pity them.
> 
> I'm not bitter at anyone. I'm upset.
> 
> I'm upset at those who think they know what's good for others and decide that I have too much and take it from me via taxes and give it directly to someone who THEY think needs it more.
> 
> I'm upset at those who think they deserve to be given my hard earned money just because they are breathing and 'life has been unfair' to them.
> 
> I'm upset at those who keep people dependent instead of doing what needs to be done to make them independent.
> 
> I'm upset at those who think they can fix things by tossing _things_ them and ignoring the roots of those things.
> 
> I'm upset that a once mighty nation of robust individualist who had the wherewithal to make some of the greatest conquest in history has been made impotent and full of whiners who think they should have anything they want just because they are here.


Post of the day award.


----------



## where I want to

I have come to the conclusion that the sense of self righteousness does not come from religion but is a human trait. Otherwise how could people who claim no religion be so aggresively insistant on the virtue they personally hold to be right? And can not allow any deviation from it it be expressed? And not to notice it is the exact same behavior they find so offensive in religion?


----------



## Irish Pixie

It's hard for me to believe that those that say they follow the teachings of Christ can be so full of hate. And that because they follow organized religion it somehow makes them better people than those that don't believe in a higher power, that don't believe in organized religion, or have other spiritual beliefs.


----------



## where I want to

watcher said:


> I have problems donating to food banks. The main one is food banks give food to anyone who walks in the door. They don't ask why there's a shortage of food, heck many don't even ask if there *IS* a shortage of food. Giving food to someone who doesn't have the knowledge to budget their resources is just putting a band-aid on a festering wound.
> 
> I donate to groups who counsel people who come in seeking help. They sit down with them one on one and find out what's going on and what the person in need can do to correct the problem. A lot of the time people with food shortage problems are that way because no one ever showed them how to cook. They think the only way to get mashed potatoes is from a box and soup only comes in little red and white cans. Its really sad the number of people who truly do not know how to cook


I don't have much of a problem with donating food for who ever wants to come and get it. People do abuse it but then some percentage of them really are in need. I'm willing to subsidize the dishonest to get food to those who need it.
But I accept that there will be abuse and am not adverse to taking action to minimize it. 
And that seems to be a major point of conflict. Too many advocates for endless benefits refuse to admit there is a sizable level of fraud and insist no actions to reduce it ever are implemented as it is disrespectful to the poor.
I resent the money machine that charity has become. The slick campaigns that scream that this is where they actually spend money. The ever inreasing number of support people living off managing the charity. The grants handed out by both government and businesses with no one ever follwing up to see where it went. The lobbying for ever more, the constant rationalizations that never are achieved. The endless self glorification of creating helpless people who exist solely as a reason for a charity's existance.
It diverts too much resources from places that can actually demonstrate they are effective at reducing the inevitable miseries that occur in life.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Gee. I never saw a post that said anyone hated anyone. 
Never saw one that said anyone was better than anyone else. 
Didn't even see that those who follow Christ said they followed organized religion, tho I'm sure there are lots of those who go to a church, and no one said they were better than anyone else... 

However there have been posts declaring some folks to have no heart. Was this "hate" by that poster/posters?


----------



## Irish Pixie

I sincerely hope that I never become as cynical and disillusioned with life as some the posters here seem to be.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> It's hard for me to believe that those that say they follow the teachings of Christ can be so full of hate. And that because they follow organized religion it somehow makes them better people than those that don't believe in a higher power, that don't believe in organized religion, or have other spiritual beliefs.


Well, since that 's the whole point of religion- to make better people- it is unreasonable to expect otherwise.
As for hate, it appears that hate is readily expressed by people who complain about hate in others too. And that is actually such an internal conflict of logic that it is difficult to see how it happens. 
And they truly do not see it apparently. I bet a few Christians at least feel guilty about their lack of charity in tolerating different opinions. While people without such outside resources seldom question themselves. If fact seem to be incensed at the very idea they should.


----------



## kasilofhome

where I want to said:


> Well, since that 's the whole point of religion- to make better people- it is unreasonable to expect otherwise.
> As for hate, it appears that hate is readily expressed by people who complain about hate in others too. And that is actually such an internal conflict of logic that it is difficult to see how it happens.
> And they truly do not see it apparently. I bet a few Christians at least feel guilty about their lack of charity in tolerating different opinions. While people without such outside resources seldom question themselves. If fact seem to be incensed at the very idea they should.


Facts..reality truth... good post.

Can't be sinless but can sinless


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> Well, since that 's the whole point of religion- to make better people- it is unreasonable to expect otherwise.
> As for hate, it appears that hate is readily expressed by people who complain about hate in others too. And that is actually such an internal conflict of logic that it is difficult to see how it happens.
> And they truly do not see it apparently. I bet a few Christians at least feel guilty about their lack of charity in tolerating different opinions. While people without such outside resources seldom question themselves. If fact seem to be incensed at the very idea they should.


I don't think making better people is the point of religion, or I'd see more people that actually follow Christ's teachings. Aren't most Christian religions based on guilt? 

You seem to think that people without religion are self centered and egotistical. Why?


----------



## Jolly

A few words about food banks and even some large charities...

While most seek to do good, sometimes the business aspect overwhelms the primary mission.

Our local food bank has become Big Business. An office building. Two warehouses. A fleet of trucks. Paid managers and line workers.

I suspect the overhead outstrips the cost of the food.

I prefer to give to smaller organizations, with a high percentage of volunteers, that means test their clients. I think I get more bang for my buck that way.


----------



## where I want to

Jolly said:


> A few words about food banks and even some large charities...
> 
> While most seek to do good, sometimes the business aspect overwhelms the primary mission.
> 
> Our local food bank has become Big Business. An office building. Two warehouses. A fleet of trucks. Paid managers and line workers.
> 
> I suspect the overhead outstrips the cost of the food.
> 
> I prefer to give to smaller organizations, with a high percentage of volunteers, that means test their clients. I think I get more bang for my buck that way.


I first noticed that when a semi owned by First Harvest had an accident on the local highway spilling produce all over. The local news interviewed the manager of one of the food banks about it. 
I can see the benefit of running a charity like a business but it does raise questions about their business plans and creating customer demand and sources of income. I just prefer not to look at it too closely.


----------



## Jolly

where I want to said:


> Well, since that 's the whole point of religion- to make better people- it is unreasonable to expect otherwise.
> As for hate, it appears that hate is readily expressed by people who complain about hate in others too. And that is actually such an internal conflict of logic that it is difficult to see how it happens.
> And they truly do not see it apparently. I bet a few Christians at least feel guilty about their lack of charity in tolerating different opinions. While people without such outside resources seldom question themselves. If fact seem to be incensed at the very idea they should.


At the risk of really seeing this go down a rabbit hole...

The origin of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is actually a quote from Ghandi. It doesn't actually say that in the Bible. But the Bible does say to rebuke sin. It also says to love thy neighbor.

So, while the Bible doesn't say it, the meaning is certainly there. One can hate the stealing while still loving the thief. Or one can hate the adultery, while still loving the adulterer.

I think most Christians can understand the concept. The problem comes in communicating with people who are non-believers. Their identity becomes so intertwined with their sin, they cannot separate the two

They simply cannot understand how Christians can accept them, without also accepting their sin.


----------



## where I want to

Jolly said:


> I think most Christians can understand the concept. The problem comes in communicating with people who are non-believers. Their identity becomes so intertwined with their sin, they cannot separate the two
> 
> They simply cannot understand how Christians can accept them, without also accepting their sin.


Or hate fraud while still being willing to give to charity..............


----------



## arabian knight

Ah yes yet abutter example of those that do not want to talk or be around or even be in the same area of Christians. And yet another fine example of Christians being prosecuted in this country of the FREE~! FREE ya now there is a laugh now that a select FEW have done so much harm in what was once a great Christ Like Country.
So much for FREEDOM of SPEECH and FREEDOM OF Religion.
it is now Freedom FROM Religion, the non believers should just GO. And most know where. LOL

*NAVAL CHAPLAIN FILES FORMAL COMPLAINT OVER CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION*


> Modder is the victim of what amounts to a *modern-day witch-hunt *whereby gays in the military work to harm others who might adhere to traditional Christian views on human sexuality and marriage.
> 
> Modder&#8217;s attorneys had asked for an official Religious Accommodation, asking that he be allowed to perform his chaplain duties according to the Bible and his denomination, which is what the Department of Defense and Navy regulations require him to do. This was denied by his commanding officer.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/11/naval-chaplain-files-formal-complaint-over-christian-persecution/


----------



## Oxankle

Pixie says:I don't think making better people is the point of religion, or I'd see more people that actually follow Christ's teachings. Aren't most Christian religions based on guilt? 

Pixie; Again, the law of large numbers. If you compare a million people who subscribe to a religion to another million of those who do not subscribe to any religion you will find fewer murderers, rapists and thieves, indeed "sinners" of any kind, in that million of church-goers. 

Religion does not make men good; it only makes them a bit better than they would otherwise be.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> At the risk of really seeing this go down a rabbit hole...
> 
> The origin of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is actually a quote from Ghandi. It doesn't actually say that in the Bible. But the Bible does say to rebuke sin. It also says to love thy neighbor.
> 
> So, while the Bible doesn't say it, the meaning is certainly there. One can hate the stealing while still loving the thief. Or *one can hate the adultery, while still loving the adulterer*.
> 
> I think most Christians can understand the concept. The problem comes in communicating with people who are non-believers. Their identity becomes so intertwined with their sin, they cannot separate the two
> 
> They simply cannot understand how Christians can accept them, without also accepting their sin.


Loving the adulterer can be a very slippery slope!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Oxankle said:


> Pixie says:I don't think making better people is the point of religion, or I'd see more people that actually follow Christ's teachings. Aren't most Christian religions based on guilt?
> 
> Pixie; Again, the law of large numbers. If you compare a million people who subscribe to a religion to another million of those who do not subscribe to any religion you will find fewer murderers, rapists and thieves, indeed "sinners" of any kind, in that million of church-goers.
> 
> Religion does not make men good; it only makes them a bit better than they would otherwise be.


You can have that opinion, but that doesn't make it a universal truth.

Do you think that non religious people aren't moral?


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> You can have that opinion, but that doesn't make it a universal truth.
> 
> Do you think that non religious people aren't moral?


Tough question... first we would have to define "moral". This puts me in mind of the young lady who asked her preacher if it was a sin to want a shiney new cadillac.... his reply: "That depends entirely upon what you are willing to do to get it".


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> I sincerely hope that I never become as cynical and disillusioned with life as some the posters here seem to be.


And may I ask how this was derived? 
B/c we all have our pet charities? 
B/c we all donate? 
B/c conservatives donate more?
B/c we see the gov't as ruining a lot of what it touches?
B/c we see some parents w/no accountability?

Or is it b/c we call you out on calling us, on this thread, haters?

Where's that Peanuts' cartoon vid of Lucy yelling 'haters', getting the facts told to her, then she says: 'haters'.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> And may I ask how this was derived?
> B/c we all have our pet charities?
> B/c we all donate?
> B/c conservatives donate more?
> B/c we see the gov't as ruining a lot of what it touches?
> B/c we see some parents w/no accountability?
> 
> Or is it b/c we call you out on calling us, on this thread, haters?


Simply an observation on my part. Draw from it what you want- you will anyway.


----------



## Tricky Grama

That's what I thought.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> And you have every right to feel the way you do, but don't attack me for donating my time to something I believe in. I believe there shouldn't be a hungry kid in this country and I actually *DO* something about it rather than fuss and complain.


That makes it appear that you are saying
1) people who object to what you say don't donate to charity and only "fuss and complain"
2) and that you have successfully prevented hunger in children
3) and that what you do is "not fuss and complain."

Beside being rude, all those assumptions are questionable.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> That makes it appear that you are saying
> 1) people who object to what you say don't donate to charity and only "fuss and complain"
> 2) and that you have successfully prevented hunger in children
> 3) and that what you do is "not fuss and complain."
> 
> Beside being rude, all those assumptions are questionable.


It may appear that way to you but you have a tendency to read what you want to read into many, many posts.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> That makes it appear that you are saying
> 1) people who object to what you say don't donate to charity and only "fuss and complain"
> 2) and that you have successfully prevented hunger in children
> 3) and that what you do is "not fuss and complain."
> 
> Beside being rude, all those assumptions are questionable.


Those are your assumptions and not at all what she said.


----------



## where I want to

Irish Pixie said:


> It may appear that way to you but you have a tendency to read what you want into many, many posts.


It may appear that way to you but you have a tendency to read what you want into many, many, many, if not all posts.


----------



## where I want to

painterswife said:


> Those are your assumptions and not at all what she said.


It is exactly what she said, except I added the part about it being questionable.


----------



## Irish Pixie

where I want to said:


> It may appear that way to you but you have a tendency to read what you want into many, many, many, if not all posts.


The open mocking is new for you. Are you going to repeat all my posts?


----------



## Oxankle

Pixie asks " Do you think that non religious people aren't moral?"

No, Pixie, I said nothing of the sort. Now just think about it. People who follow the tenets of a religion have a guide, a blueprint for morality, a set of rules for life. 

People who do not subscribe to any religion have to devise that set of rules for themselves. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes self-interest gives them an incentive to deviate from the path of what we call morality. 

Again, this would be true only when dealing in large numbers of people. In any given sample from either religious or non-religious we may get all good people or all bad people.

Given the choice of living in a town of non-religious or a town of religious people I'd feel safer, but perhaps bored, in the town of religious people.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Oxankle said:


> Pixie asks " Do you think that non religious people aren't moral?"
> 
> No, Pixie, I said nothing of the sort. Now just think about it. *People who follow the tenets of a religion have a guide, a blueprint for morality, a set of rules for life. *
> 
> People who do not subscribe to any religion have to devise that set of rules for themselves. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes self-interest gives them an incentive to deviate from the path of what we call morality.
> 
> Again, this would be true only when dealing in large numbers of people. In any given sample from either religious or non-religious we may get all good people or all bad people.
> 
> Given the choice of living in a town of non-religious or a town of religious people I'd feel safer, but perhaps bored, in the town of religious people.


Seriously? Religious people are the only ones that have, and I quote, "a blueprint for morality"? Is that what you meant? Because you just said that everyone that is not religious received no moral training. 

Great Googly Moogly. My non church doing but very moral grandmother must be rolling in her grave.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Seriously? Religious people are the only ones that have, and I quote, "a blueprint for morality"? Is that what you meant? Because you just said that everyone that is not religious received no moral training.
> 
> Great Googly Moogly. My non church doing but very moral grandmother must be rolling in her grave.


I'd like you to read Oxankle's post & quote where he said religious people are the only ones that have a blueprint for morality. Please. Just quote where he said that. I read a statement about what religious people have. That's all. 
Project much? 
Who reads stuff into posts that is not there?


----------



## tarbe

Irish Pixie said:


> With classes ending for the summer many kids that rely on school food programs will go hungry. If you are able, please donate to No Kid Hungry, your local food bank, and/or your local food program.
> 
> There shouldn't be a single hungry or food insecure kid in this country.


I realize this is a very long thread and I am sorry if I am plowing the same row again....

I think it is a shame that kids (and their parents) have become dependent upon the school food program to the point where they feel they _cannot_ survive without outside food help.

My goodness, what did the millions of poor among us (myself included) do to survive before the government schools started feeding kids?

I can't help but think of "Field of Dreams"...if you build it, they will come.

Tim


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> I don't have much of a problem with donating food for who ever wants to come and get it. People do abuse it but then some percentage of them really are in need. I'm willing to subsidize the dishonest to get food to those who need it.
> 
> But I accept that there will be abuse and am not adverse to taking action to minimize it.
> 
> And that seems to be a major point of conflict. Too many advocates for endless benefits refuse to admit there is a sizable level of fraud .


 This post leaves me confused. 
First " I don't have much of a problem with donating for whoever wants to come and get it"
Then you mention fraud. 
If something is open to one and all how can there be fraud ?

What is the sizable level of fraud you refer to? What source do you have for the accusation ?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd like you to read Oxankle's post & quote where he said religious people are the only ones that have a blueprint for morality. Please. Just quote where he said that. I read a statement about what religious people have. That's all.
> Project much?
> Who reads stuff into posts that is not there?


Uh, he said it right here, "People who do not subscribe to any religion have to devise that set of rules for themselves. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes self-interest gives them an incentive to deviate from the path of what we call morality." 

What part of "have to devise that set of rules for themselves" don't you understand? If they have to do it themselves there is no blue print made for them, right?

Not projecting at all, but perhaps you should read a bit more carefully.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Uh, he said it right here, "People who do not subscribe to any religion have to devise that set of rules for themselves. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes self-interest gives them an incentive to deviate from the path of what we call morality."
> 
> What part of "have to devise that set of rules for themselves" don't you understand? If they have to do it themselves there is no blue print made for them, right?
> 
> Not projecting at all, but perhaps you should read a bit more carefully.


No where, NO WHERE does it say religious people are the only ones w/morals. NO WHERE. Some people have a set of rules given. And others have to devise that set of rules for themselves. WOW Does that say they're immoral? NO where does it say non-religious people have no moral training. 
Its becoming hilarious. DH & 2 of my neighbors are lol.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> No where, NO WHERE does it say religious people are the only ones w/morals. NO WHERE. Some people have a set of rules given. And others have to devise that set of rules for themselves. WOW Does that say they're immoral? Dos that say they have no morals? Does that say non-religious are NOT moral?
> Its becoming hilarious.


I'm sorry, you really do have to read for comprehension. I don't think it's funny, I think it's really sad. Especially sad when a whole group of people can't, or won't, read for comprehension.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> No where, NO WHERE does it say religious people are the only ones w/morals. NO WHERE. Some people have a set of rules given. And others have to devise that set of rules for themselves. WOW Does that say they're immoral? NO where does it say non-religious people have no moral training.
> Its becoming hilarious. DH & 2 of my neighbors are lol.


Here is a hint, she said blueprint to morality, not no morality. No morality training, not no morality.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Here is a hint, she said blueprint to morality, not no morality. No morality training, not no morality.


That too-where does Oxankle say "no morality training". They get to make their own blueprint. Nowhere did he say that was wrong, immoral, or that only religious people have morals.


----------



## Wanda

Tricky Grama said:


> No where, NO WHERE does it say religious people are the only ones w/morals. NO WHERE. Some people have a set of rules given. And others have to devise that set of rules for themselves. WOW Does that say they're immoral? NO where does it say non-religious people have no moral training.
> Its becoming hilarious. DH & 2 of my neighbors are lol.




Is the meaning of a post all contained in the ''key word'' and if it is used? You mean I could make a complete post about a person on this board that implied all sorts of illegal activities ,you would be OK with it. I would not use the words liar or thief. When asked all I will have to say is, read it again that was not what I said.:shrug:


----------



## Oxankle

Pixie: Sorry if I failed to mention that non-religious people may adopt their mama's or their grandma's or their maiden aunt's standards as a part of their own moral code. Nevertheless, if they do not adhere to a religion they wind up by devising their own standard. Indeed, many people who describe themselves as non-religious go so far as to reject outright certain elements of the moral code the rest of us adhere to.
If they do adopt part of a role model's standard the chances are good that the standard was based on a religion.

Insofar as I know there are no secular institutions promulgating comprehensive moral standards. Could be wrong; if so set me straight.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Oxankle said:


> Pixie: Sorry if I failed to mention that non-religious people may adopt their mama's or their grandma's or their maiden aunt's standards as a part of their own moral code. Nevertheless, if they do not adhere to a religion they wind up by devising their own standard. Indeed, many people who describe themselves as non-religious go so far as to reject outright certain elements of the moral code the rest of us adhere to.
> If they do adopt part of a role model's standard the chances are good that the standard was based on a religion.
> 
> Insofar as I know there are no secular institutions promulgating comprehensive moral standards. Could be wrong; if so set me straight.


Just as long as you don't continue to say that non-religious people are immoral... and then you have to add " If they do adopt part of a role model's standard the chances are good that the standard was based on a religion." and mess it all up again. 

A person does not need religious training to be moral. Period. It's a learned behavior (unless you're a sociopath) but it's not necessary to have any type of religious training.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> This post leaves me confused.
> First " I don't have much of a problem with donating for whoever wants to come and get it"
> Then you mention fraud.
> If something is open to one and all how can there be fraud ?
> 
> What is the sizable level of fraud you refer to? What source do you have for the accusation ?


Many food banks, especially ones that get funding from the States, do have rules on income and service area. But as far as I ever heard, proof of those requirements are an ID with an address and a statement.
Because I donate doesn't mean I choose the rules. And that some who have said they shop at different food banks using different ID. I suppose is a form of fraud. But not one that bothers me . I was only told this by a person who was sharing their ways of getting what they want. I have no idea how reliable this person was as to this- they had no reason to lie to me but that is no guarantee.
I have no idea what level of fraud there is and I don't care. There are somethings that are not worth worrying about and this is one.


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> .
> 
> I have no idea what level of fraud there is and I don't care.



Then why did you make unfounded accusations ?


----------



## Patchouli

Oxankle said:


> Pixie: Sorry if I failed to mention that non-religious people may adopt their mama's or their grandma's or their maiden aunt's standards as a part of their own moral code. Nevertheless, if they do not adhere to a religion they wind up by devising their own standard. Indeed, many people who describe themselves as non-religious go so far as to reject outright certain elements of the moral code the rest of us adhere to.
> If they do adopt part of a role model's standard the chances are good that the standard was based on a religion.
> 
> Insofar as I know there are no secular institutions promulgating comprehensive moral standards. Could be wrong; if so set me straight.


The real question here is which came first in human history religion or morals. That would be morals. And those were based on what kept humans from killing each other and gave them a framework to live together in large groups peacefully. Those basic rules of behavior eventually got codified by religions. Each religion majors on some and minors on others and some leave out things others find highly important. But ultimately the core goal religious or secular is making sure we can all live together peacefully. Period.


----------



## arabian knight

I bet this thread will go on and on till School Starts. Ands ALL this back and forth and not giving in or compromising will be IN VAIN, cause School will start and they can eat on the tax payers dime once again. LOL


----------



## TxHorseMom

I feel like many of you. Sick and tired of the government dujour wasting my money. And many days I feel frustrated when I see those whom (IMO) can and should work for what they get instead of living off of "my" money. But you know what? I don't like feeling that way. And as a Christian *I* believe that God doesn't want me to feel that way either. *I* believe that God wants me to be charitable when I can, and if that charity is misplaced, well, that's between them and God. I did what He wants me to do. Now, there's days that life gets to me, and I have difficulty being charitable in both thought and deed, like many other Christians. And that is my sin. Because, as a Christian, unfortunately, I sin sometimes. To someone on the outside it may seem like I'm being a hypocrite, when in fact, I'm just a flawed human being.


----------



## Irish Pixie

I truly hope that I never become so cynical and hard that I'd complain about feeding a kid. SMH.


----------



## Irish Pixie

TxHorseMom said:


> I feel like many of you. Sick and tired of the government dujour wasting my money. And many days I feel frustrated when I see those whom (IMO) can and should work for what they get instead of living off of "my" money. But you know what? I don't like feeling that way. And as a Christian *I* believe that God doesn't want me to feel that way either. *I* believe that God wants me to be charitable when I can, and if that charity is misplaced, well, that's between them and God. I did what He wants me to do. Now, there's days that life gets to me, and I have difficulty being charitable in both thought and deed, like many other Christians. And that is my sin. Because, as a Christian, unfortunately, I sin sometimes. To someone on the outside it may seem like I'm being a hypocrite, when in fact, I'm just a flawed human being.


This is being moral and charitable. Thank you.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> Then why did you make unfounded accusations ?


I didn't. Anyway the amount of overreation in this response is telling.


----------



## where I want to

I truly hope I never become so beaten down by the nasty people of the world that I stop trying to find a better way to encourage chilidren into growing up confident in their own ability to achieve what they want.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> The real question here is which came first in human history religion or morals. That would be morals. And those were based on what kept humans from killing each other and gave them a framework to live together in large groups peacefully. Those basic rules of behavior eventually got codified by religions. Each religion majors on some and minors on others and some leave out things others find highly important. But ultimately the core goal religious or secular is making sure we can all live together peacefully. Period.


Only if you assume the purpose of religion is interhuman relations. I suspect that religion came into being because people were facing forces over which they had no power as all the evidence of early religions is about people appeasing these forces to ensure the forces were not antagonistic to them. They decided that the gods wanted people to offer sacrifices and worship. Only when the gods seemed to deal out their powers against the people , did they worry about their own behavior. They spent most of their effort figuring out what the god's wanted from them and arranging for it.
The earliest records of people worrying about what the gods want them to do in their own relations that I know of is the idea in the Illiad that the god's needed human sacrifice of Agememnon's daughter to permit him to sail off to his war. There was much debate as to whether angered or pleased the gods more.
A correlation can be found in China's earliest history where the famous terracotta warriors were made as a subsitute for the previous mass human sacrifice that were to accompany the ruler into the afterlife.
Morals, as modern people mean them, probably came into being as humans tried puzzling out what the spirits, and later the gods, wanted. How they treated each other came from that refining process.
Religion came first and developed or refined morals. Anything that passed for morals before that was the result of biological prohibitions.


----------



## Oxankle

Where I Want To;
I suspect that religion, a worship of a deity, existed long before the Chinese, who came before the Iliad. 

I suspect that monotheism came late to the game, but there forms of worship before that. Come to think of it, the earliest governmental unit, the family, had to work out some basic rules of conduct. Then the clan, the tribe, and so on up the ladder until we come to today.


----------



## where I want to

Oxankle said:


> Where I Want To;
> I suspect that religion, a worship of a deity, existed long before the Chinese, who came before the Iliad.
> 
> I suspect that monotheism came late to the game, but there forms of worship before that. Come to think of it, the earliest governmental unit, the family, had to work out some basic rules of conduct. Then the clan, the tribe, and so on up the ladder until we come to today.


True, very true. They were used because their early creation of writing provided a record where as earlier societies are speculative. 
I was just questioning the assumption that morals came about to ensure peaceful human interaction. Not that I think even families are necessarily peaceful- they are units of protection from others. 
The point was power, or lack of it, is always the initiator of change. Somewhere people started questioning the efficacy of human sacrifice due to the great damage in society that it created. Then animal sacrifice was subsituted, questioned and again determined not to be effective, at least by western thought. Moral standards were developed from the process of this change in thought.
Peace was not the motivator. As demonstrated by the highly moral Spartans, who were very violent even to each other, but aimed their moral codes to making success at making warriors, not philosophers.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> And you have every right to feel the way you do, but don't attack me for donating my time to something I believe in. I believe there shouldn't be a hungry kid in this country and I actually *DO* something about it rather than fuss and complain.


I don't care what you do with your time or money but I do care about the damage that can be done by what you are doing.

Look at it this way. If your neighbor was spending his time and his money feeding, let's say deer, would you have a problem with that? I'm guessing no. You should, not because you think he's wasting time and money but because his actions have a good chance of causing harm. 

It leads to the deer to hang around and usually results in the neighbor's yards and flower beds being trampled and/or eaten.

It teaches deer that humans mean food which leads to them not being fearful of humans. During deer season that lack of fear could lead to their death.

It teaches deer to expect humans to provide food. This can lead to them becoming aggressive when no food is forthcoming from a human.

It causes a large number of deer to be in the same area for long periods of time. The can result in the spreading of disease. It also results in more bucks in rut being in the same area which can lead to fights which would not otherwise happen and more serious fights. And bucks in rut can be dangerous. Plus more deer mean a greater chance of deer-car accidents.

These are just a few of the reasons people who care about wildlife tell people to not feed deer.

Now like it or not humans react to situations much like animals. If you take care of someone who isn't working why would he ever look for a job? If you feed someone's child why would they feel the need to do it themselves? If a child sees his parent not working or not needing to feed their children do you really think that child is going to grow up with a strong worth ethic and good parenting skills?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I sincerely hope that I never become as cynical and disillusioned with life as some the posters here seem to be.


Do you think Christ was cynical and disillusioned? After all He said that there will always be hungry people. Plus I don't remember any where in the Bible where He went out and feed kids just because their parents weren't feeding them. I can remember when He fed people who had came out to hear the Word and then, for a good twist, He took food FROM a kid to feed them.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> It may appear that way to you but you have a tendency to read what you want to read into many, many posts.


Then what do you read into mine? I donate, and have for years and years, my time, money and goods. But I will not donate either to a place which is going to either waste it or use it to support what they claim to be trying to end.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> The real question here is which came first in human history religion or morals. That would be morals. And those were based on what kept humans from killing each other and gave them a framework to live together in large groups peacefully. Those basic rules of behavior eventually got codified by religions. Each religion majors on some and minors on others and some leave out things others find highly important. But ultimately the core goal religious or secular is making sure we can all live together peacefully. Period.


I think if you read history you will discover humans have NEVER been able to live in large groups peacefully, at least for very long.

I have discovered that most people moral codes are more like moral guidelines which can be bent when the situation needs it.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> Only if you assume the purpose of religion is interhuman relations. I suspect that religion came into being because people were facing forces over which they had no power as all the evidence of early religions is about people appeasing these forces to ensure the forces were not antagonistic to them. They decided that the gods wanted people to offer sacrifices and worship. Only when the gods seemed to deal out their powers against the people , did they worry about their own behavior. They spent most of their effort figuring out what the god's wanted from them and arranging for it.
> The earliest records of people worrying about what the gods want them to do in their own relations that I know of is the idea in the Illiad that the god's needed human sacrifice of Agememnon's daughter to permit him to sail off to his war. There was much debate as to whether angered or pleased the gods more.
> A correlation can be found in China's earliest history where the famous terracotta warriors were made as a subsitute for the previous mass human sacrifice that were to accompany the ruler into the afterlife.
> Morals, as modern people mean them, probably came into being as humans tried puzzling out what the spirits, and later the gods, wanted. How they treated each other came from that refining process.
> Religion came first and developed or refined morals. Anything that passed for morals before that was the result of biological prohibitions.


There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that religion came first or that morality sprang from it. 

I agree with you that people first created Gods and religion to explain the unexplainable. And that morals came later. But the ability to live together and the framework necessary to do so came first.


----------



## Patchouli

watcher said:


> Do you think Christ was cynical and disillusioned? After all He said that there will always be hungry people. Plus I don't remember any where in the Bible where He went out and feed kids just because their parents weren't feeding them. I can remember when He fed people who had came out to hear the Word and then, for a good twist, He took food FROM a kid to feed them.


Jesus said there would always be poor and needy people and to take care of them. Jesus took children pretty seriously:



> Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
> 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
> 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
> 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
> 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
> 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.


And feeding people: 



> Matthew 25
> 31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
> 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
> 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
> 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
> 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
> 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
> 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
> 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
> 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
> 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
> 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
> 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
> 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
> 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
> 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
> 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> Jesus said there would always be poor and needy people and to take care of them. Jesus took children pretty seriously:
> 
> 
> 
> And feeding people:


"33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left."

So we need to feed our sheep and let our goats fend for themselves?


----------



## wr

mmoetc said:


> Maybe we should teach these folks to feed themselves. http://m.military.com/daily-news/2014/08/18/study-finds-25-of-troops-use-food-banks.html


Thanks for bringing that up. The veteran's food bank is a charity that is very important to me. 

I hate seeing anybody struggle but it seems somehow worse when leaders in both our countries live fairly well and the folks who are or have been expected to defend us are worried about making ends meet.


----------



## poppy

Patchouli said:


> Jesus said there would always be poor and needy people and to take care of them. Jesus took children pretty seriously:
> 
> 
> 
> And feeding people:


Notice in Mathew 25:40 of your post the words "my brethren"? Who were Christ's brethren? He was Jewish, so Jews were His brethren. He also called His followers His brethren. He was not referring to everyone. Which of His brethren were hungry, naked, and in prison? The Jews fit those descriptions in Germany's concentration camps. How many in the world tried to help them? How about His brethren being killed today in places like the Middle East, both Jews and Christians? Have you tried to help them? Certainly our government nor our churches have made much effort.


----------



## Patchouli

poppy said:


> Notice in Mathew 25:40 of your post the words "my brethren"? Who were Christ's brethren? He was Jewish, so Jews were His brethren. He also called His followers His brethren. He was not referring to everyone. Which of His brethren were hungry, naked, and in prison? The Jews fit those descriptions in Germany's concentration camps. How many in the world tried to help them? How about His brethren being killed today in places like the Middle East, both Jews and Christians? Have you tried to help them? Certainly our government nor our churches have made much effort.


I have helped a lot of elderly Jewish women make aliyah and not starve to death once they get to Israel.


----------



## where I want to

I was raised in a military family and it was always feast on the first of the month and long way to the end of the month. People got paid in the first and it tooks hours to work your way through the lines at the grocery as everyone below general was in the same position and desperately needed to shop immediately.. Military salaries historically were raised when Congress was told that no one would work for that money and they couldn't retain people either..
Only no one would ever think of complaining outside to civilians because that put the service in disrepute. People got together and helped each other.
There are compensations for the poor salary.


----------



## TxHorseMom

poppy said:


> Notice in Mathew 25:40 of your post the words "my brethren"? Who were Christ's brethren? He was Jewish, so Jews were His brethren. He also called His followers His brethren. He was not referring to everyone. Which of His brethren were hungry, naked, and in prison? The Jews fit those descriptions in Germany's concentration camps. How many in the world tried to help them? How about His brethren being killed today in places like the Middle East, both Jews and Christians? Have you tried to help them? Certainly our government nor our churches have made much effort.


We are ALL my brethren. Jesus is the Son of God and we are the children of God.


----------

