My observation is that many people do not know how to cook or plan meals. They
want instant food that costs more with no or little preparation. When I was
working, I learned to use a crock pot for dinner meals. I could purchase less
expensive cuts of meat to use in soup or stew. I prepared everything I could the
night before, then planned about 10 minutes in the morning to complete the
process. It worked out well--the food was ready when I walked in the door. I
have experimented with the dollars provided for food stamp recipients in my
home. There was adequate healthy food with careful planning.
Children should never go hungry. We send billions to other countries and allow
our own little ones to starve. This is obscene. I can't begin to calculate
the waste that funnels into the federal government in tax dollars that never
makes to the mouth of a hungry child but instead ends up in some union
boss's pension fund to secure votes for the next election.
I agree that children should not go hungry, but I have questions about how to
deal with the situation. After you feed them today, what does tomorrow bring if
parents and communities are not rallying around to help them become a family
with the means to do what the state should NOT be doing ? Tomorrow comes and
both parents and children are hungry. I know our community supplies free lunch
in the summer. The paper always reports that many, more are there and seem to
indicate that the economy is so much worse off. I know for a fact that because
there is free food and nobody asks any questions, everybody - rich, poor, day
cares, strangers coming through town, everybody - takes the children there for
lunch. During the school year, there are free lunches and reduced lunches and
although they ask about income, nobody seems to check on the validity of the
information. Those people could be needy or not. When that became the norm,
breakfast was then provided under the same conditions. The problem is deeper
than just being hungry because it won't go away if someone keeps providing
food. I have no answers, just questions.
Frequently when I was a child, if my brothers collected on their paper routes,
we could have supper of a box of macaroni elbows (26 cents) and a can of tomato
sauce (15 cents). If not, maybe there was enough stuff in the cupboard to make
baking powder biscuits. Maybe not. Nobody cared about carbs back then, just
about filling up. It was the mid-60s, 6 kids, SAH mom, dad worked but frequented
the bars. Food insecurity is an excellent term; it's not a new
concept. I am in my 60s now and reasonably financially secure. I regularly
volunteer at the local food bank and I see people who feed their family from the
shelves coming in, their bodies covered with expensive professional tattoos, and
I am 11 again and so angry.
there are certainly those in real dire straits but many of that 17 million have
been weened on school, lunch, school breakfast, and other give away programs so
that they just expect that someone else will take care of their most basic
needs. As the family organization crumbles the kids are left to fend for
themselves and are being taught by self-indulgent adults in their lives that a
good meal is a bag of chips and a 32 ounce drink. By creating more food give
away's we are only scratching the surface of the problem.
You can have the government feed them at the cost of mere millions, or they can
go to their local church for support. Unless the leftists have the better idea -
confiscate your hard earned money to feed children of those who do not work or
are unwilling to work...
It's interesting to see the comments from members of the "Let Them
Starve" Party. Of course, a party that is convinced that the answer to every
problem is the free market will never understand the nature of most problems or
arrive at viable solutions. This issue is similar to health care. There are
simply some things the unfettered market cannot do. Consequently, our devotion
to "free enterprise" has given us a country with rapidly increasing
inequality, where billionaires can't find investments that will give them
the return they desire and 50 million people can't afford to feed their
families. And Utahns keep voting to make things worse.
One can blame the "leftists" or whomever they choose.However, the
bottom line is that children are starving. We won't discuss the starving
adults if that fits in better with your political think tank.Children are
unable think at school if they are hungry. It is natures way of telling us we
are heading from trouble unless we eat.Adults don't work well either
if they are without the means to get something to eat throughout the day.So, go ahead conservative legislators and your voting block......... do away
with the food stamp program if it offends you and provides you a more
comfortable way of living in America.
In an ideal world we would all be working for a living - however, whatever the
reasons may be, that is not always the case. I would rather the state, if I was
in that situation, took care of that than relying on the sometimes fickle
charity of others. Much more dignified, really. Anyway, some (some, I wrote)
give because it gives them a feeling of power - they are in a position to do so,
you are not. Raise taxes to help more...I've no problem with paying a bit
more tax for that...I love the US but take a leaf from Europe's book with
this - and we are doing not that badly, by the way...nothing wrong with
Democratic Socialism...make a million, no problem, but don't leave others
Our confidence in government has hit rock-bottom. Having a year and a half to
avert the fiscal cliff all our leaders could do is fight with one another.Besides, "Freedom from Want," "New Deal" and "Great
Society" were expensive failures. Unless you count the government workers
who were assigned to administer the problem. They're doing well.We've all watched Food Stamp recipients who are obviously making money
somewhere and/or spending what they have on luxuries.If you want to read a
good summary of the welfare program, find the book called That's not what
we meant to do, by Steven M Gillon. It was written over a decade ago so it
isn't a blame Bush or blame Obama tome.
The problem is more deeply rooted. Kids on welfare are taught to get a good
education so they can get a good job. Nothing about how to be self sufficient.
Nothing that would help the kids grow up to be entrepenuers, in turn growing
more jobs.Why can't they learn this from their parents? Because
their parents are already trapped in the cycle of "get a good job", and
it didn't work for them..... JOB stands for Just Over Broke.
Truthfully with the way our system is set up, it costs more to eat healthy than
it does to buy pre-cooked unhealthy ready in a box meals. Of course we can grow
our own foods but, the cost of seeds are rising every year. Not to mention
restrictions put on some things you can and cannot do on your land. It is very
sad. My family did it's own experiment to prove this theory and honestly
our family spent 2 times more in purchasing the foods or ingredients to make
meals. For example, if we found deals on fresh produce, grains, soy, we lost the
amount saved in the gas used to hunt the deals down with. The "quality of
life" in our nation is at risk and has been for a long time. It all boils
down to the heads and boards of corporations wanting to be more rich than the
rich pockets they already have.
JRJ, the school foods programs do ask for income and do ask for proof of that
income to be provided. I just thought you should know that. The problems are
with the lack of balance between what people make and the costs of what they can
buy...along with people making those choices of what's important...like Wii
games or groceries. 2 generations ago gave up on training the parents/adults...1
generation ago came those who only self-indulged or gave away the "fish
instead of giving the pole with lessons"...now we have the generation of
today with all past generations complaining about them.