Parts of this program and the participants are worthy and excellent examples.Other parts are nothing but massive federal bureaucracies shoveling
money out the door to keep people dependent forever.Private
donations, recipients helping prepare the meals, are all great. Keep it up!Beating the bushes to round up more "takers" is not good. If
they are really hungry, they will come. Unfortunately, some who simply spend
for non-essentials instead of food, or who are lazy will also come. Raising
eligibility to 185% of the poverty level is bad. At some point people need to
be responsible for themselves. If 185% should be included, why not 250% or 500%
as well? Is this a safety net for the desperate, or a hammock for those who do
not want to work?The Utahns against Hunger are surely well meaning
and do a lot of good, however, they measure their success by how many people
they can get into welfare programs. They really should measure success by how
many people no longer need their help.Again, this is a mixed story,
but it reinforces that most Utahns are generous and sharing people.
I have to wonder why anyone in the United states is going hungry while 47
million people are getting foodstamps. It just doesn't add up. If
they're getting foodstamps they should be able to feed themselves. If
they're hungry because they're not getting foodstamps they should
apply. To solve a problem you have to understand what the problem is. Solving
this one requires us to find the answer to that question, why is anyone hungry
when 47 million people are getting foodstamps?
They should never call it a "free meal". What they should do, is inform
these people that others covered the costs and distribution of these meals.
Someone else had to work for it. Once people understand where their food is
coming from, it's no longer an entitlement, but, real people, making real
sacrifices to help others. For the honest in heart, they will think at some
point when they're off the system they'll also contribute back to
it.I wish we had gardens that these people can work in for a bit, to
pay for these meals. There needs to be a sense of them actually earning it,
rather than just handing it out. There is no shame in earning your meal.
That's what (now) a minority of the country does, while the rest get to
enjoy subsidized food, housing, healthcare, bike lanes etc. The majority living
off the spoils of the minority. Kinda brings us back to the 1600-1800's
idazut,In many areas we have people who are among the working poor,
like most SNAP beneficiaries, they are teachers, construction workers, factory
workers, retail and service-industry workers. They may not qualify for the SNAP
program, but they still are not paid enough to get by. It is not their standard
of living as much as the fact that their companies know they can pay them next
to nothing (especially in rural areas) and they have to accept that or nothing.
It appears to me this program may have a laudable goal of providing food for
people who are hungry but it is short sighted. There are various social
programs that provide either money or stamps to purchase food items at grocery
stores, or obtain food items from pantries with which the parent can, or should
be to prepare a meal for themselves or dependent minors.The economy
is not up to par but the end result of giving "free" meals to people is
to create a dependency that will not lead to independence but an underclass that
will constantly have a hand out and refuse to work when they have the
opportunity.Why work when you can sit around and wait for someone to
provide you with a meal. Next there will be protests because the content does
not meet your expectations. Another result is parents who cannot cook a meal
from basic ingredients and will not be able to survive once the "free"
food is no more.