Discussion on:

Please Don't Feed the Wildlife

Any Park Ranger will tell us to refrain from feeding the wildlife, lest they become dependent on the handouts.

Food Stamps in America are being handed out at record levels.

I guess people aren't as smart (or as important) as wildlife.

the people - it's that simple.

That's an excellent comparison, Max. I fail to understand why 47 million people receive food stamps. This is an interesting link about the food stamp program http://www.trivisonno.com/food-stamps-charts

The problem I have with food stamps is that it has become a way of life for too many people. The food stamp program was meant to be a temporary helping hand in hard times, not permanent supplemental income. As long as our government continues to hand out "free" assistance, there will always be takers who game the system. The "free" government assistance is not actually free, it is paid for by the taxpayers through wealth redistribution.

AV

The U.S. labor market was already shrinking before the recession, more wage inequality and fewer good jobs.

If our electronics and clothes are made in China, our cars are made in Mexico, and your PC support comes from Hyderbad, where are the good paying factory jobs we saw in the 1960s-1990s??? Where are the good entry-level IT jobs?

They are gone forever.

People have to eat. Living is poverty is not a lifestyle choice. Nearly two million veterans and active-duty military personnel are on food-stamps and more than $100M of food-stamp spending happens on military bases.

The food stamp program costs $72B a year. Raising taxes on the rich will bring in $80B a year. Problem solved.

Is there fraud, waste, and abuse? Of course there is, it's a government program.

But would lots of kids go to bed hungry without it? Yup.

that soldiers are not paid enough to feed themselves and their families. Surely this is one part of the military budget that we can all agree should be increased. The food stamps bill would get slightly lower, though not enough to offset the military wage increases.

is because a large chunk of the military budget is spent buying hardware the military neither asked for nor wants. Gotta keep those factories running back in the state / district, dontchakno? But remember, government doesn't create jobs! [/sarcasm]

Its just disgraceful that any of our military are underpaid after the sacrifices that they made for our country.

AV

even in the years with heavy losses.
Coming home to empty homes with eviction notices isn't all that uncommon, I hear.

Take out the military, unemployed or underemployed and maybe some seniors and the number is still unbelievably high. The program is supposed to be for the needy and I find it hard to believe there are that many needy people in this country. I think there are probably quite a few people that have eked out a lifestyle based on government welfare programs.

I've known a few over the years and they take advantage of every available program that there is. One woman I know of is on disability. She is married, her husband works and they have 3 kids. They live in a $400,000 house. She collects $16,000 a year from Social Security and receives $8000 a year for each child. Her husband works in IT and makes a 6 figure salary. Thats a good deal, isn't it? They go on more vacations than I do.

I used to babysit for woman with 4 kids whose husband left her. She went on welfare, received food stamps. Welfare got her a house, fully subsidized, to live in. She went to college for free and worked under the table for extra money. All of their healthcare was for free. She did get her degree and got a job and off the programs, but you can live a pretty nice lifestyle using government programs.

I agree that we need to give a helping hand to the needy, but it seems to me that our current food stamp and welfare programs do not have enough oversight to prevent abuse like this. Also, there are many charity organizations that provide help for the needy. Shouldn't it be the role of charities to provide this help for the most part and not the taxpayers? If we are spending $72B a year just on food stamps, we should be looking at why.

AV

Your second lady, whose husband left and who eventually got a degree and a job, seems to have taken advantage of the programs and made herself a successful, independent economic agent who supports her children without further direct assistance. Sounds to me like a great justification for those programs. Too bad the hardship cases aren't all like her.

Your other lady doesn't sound as sweet, but if she's disabled and she worked before being laid low, then she's entitled to disability payments from Social Security. I assume the kids must be from a prior husband, since I don't believe they'd be entitled to support payments if she lived with their father. Is she actually married to husband #2?

But, why wasn't her bum of a husband held accountable? Instead it was us taxpayers? Surely he must have had a job somewhere.

The other lady is one of those people that knows how to game the system. The kids are from her current husband and SS still pays her for them. I don't understand how that can be, but its true. Supposedly, she is terminally ill and should have been dead awhile ago, but I met her and there is nothing disabled about her. I don't think she has ever held a real job. To me, SS should investigate the doctor that put her on disability in the first place.

AV

Simply refuse to play by the rules that we accept. I know of several people who just give up when faced with challenges and retire to their own little shell and do absolutely nothing at all.

If womans 2 Male Partner was like this it doesn't matter what you try to do if he refuses to work and does nothing at all do you honestly believe that the kids should suffer?

I've also seen cases where otherwise wealth people have no Legal Income and can not be forced to pay what they Legally Do Not Have to support their kids.

With people the real problem is People are involved and way too often what is reasonable gets tossed out with the Bath Water so that one or both parties involved win what they want or at the very least don't pay what they are obliged to.

But then again without knowing anything of the people involved at all it is just as likely that the male involved died and the insurance company providing Life Insurance refused to pay out on the claim leaving the woman and kids with nothing except debts.

Col

It might be most just, as far as society is concerned, to stick her ex-husband with all the burden of helping her find her feet and become independent. It seems like he wasn't very good at caring for her in the first place, though; what makes you think we'd be successful at insisting that he cough up support money? Should she be shackled to this failure of a man, who might even quit working out of spite, or even worse, decide it would be easier on him to move back in with her? The "charity" system worked well for her, and produced as much justice as you're likely to get in life. You could choose to dwell instead on a man who runs away from responsibilities and is probably making a fresh tragedy of some cocktail waitress's life now. Some people will always be a waste: he is; his ex-wife isn't.

Don't know what to say about your other gal. Unless she faked her medical exam, it seems like a diagnosis of no work and a fatal illness are grounds for receiving disability payments. Perhaps the fact that she can enjoy life while receiving government checks seems unjust? Maybe she's scamming; maybe not.

We're spending over 10 times that a year on war. Shouldn't we be asking why?

Don't ask why.

Why is it when someone points out government overspending on one thing, so many people reply - with some sort of justification, I assume - with a comment about even higher government spending on something else?

"Oh yea, well what about ......"

Sounds like a school yard playground comment.

How about this? Government spends too much money on everything!

Geesh, Nick. You either think the government food stamp program is a sham, a waste, and destructive, or you don't.

I do. AV does. Are you really defending it?

You either think the government food stamp program is a sham, a waste, and destructive, or you don't.

I think it's a crock of schitt that 42 million people can't find work that pays them enough to buy food for their families. Hell, yes, I'm defending it; it's keeping people alive. What's the other option? Swift's elegant solution? Did you read anything at any of the links I provided below? Or that anybody else has provided? Or did you discount the information in them because your preconceptions make it difficult to impossible for you to consider that a government program outside defense might be useful?

And before you go off about helping, yes, I help when I can; so do millions of others. I suspect even you help when possible. But the help that's provided isn't enough to do more than stave off starvation. The help that is needed most is a living wage for full-time workers, and, given the conduct of business in such an environment (cf. Gilded Age), your anti-regulation, free-market stance essentially means you're against that, too!

Is the USA, as you have previously described it, the "greatest nation on the face of the Earth"? Does it do its best to take care of all its citizens, with the government stepping in when private organizations cannot? Or is it just another third-world nation with the wealth and income concentrated in the hands of a very few, with the remainder of the population fighting to survive in the face of a system that tells them all they have to do to improve themselves is work, while denying them the chance?

That's your premise; and your premise is flawed. It renders the rest of your argument (here or elsewhere) moot.

The current version of the official Food Stamp Assistance Program wasn't implemented until 1964, so your premise that people would die without it would suggest that people died without it before 1964, which is not true.

It's not the role of government to hand out food on a regular basis to its citizens - without which NO ONE WOULD DIE. If you think otherwise, you're a fool.

supporting your assertion. But I'm still waiting for the Mexican food stamp ads, too.

...your premise that people would die without it would suggest that people died without it before 1964, which is not true.

Nobody ever died because they couldn't get food? Sounds like another recent quote, something to the effect that nobody ever died because they couldn't get medical care.

The food stamp program is a symptom, Max. Until you stop spouting talking points about stereotypes and address the reason the program is even necessary, any complaint you may have about the size of the program is, at best, disingenuous.

I think its a disincentive to taking responsibility for yourself. Let me ask you something. Say you lost your job and you got an entry level job and weren't making ends meet. Do you think to yourself "I really need to get on food stamps." Or "I need to sign up for welfare". OR do you think "Maybe I need to work an additional part time job for awhile till I find another better paying job" or "Maybe I need to tighten my belt more". Why does the government have to subsidize so many people that COULD be able to do it on their own if they had to?

Everyone has hard times in their life sometime and if their answer is always to look for a government program to help them when they are faced with hard times they will never develop the skills to face life's challenges on their own. You may look at me as a cold and mean, but I think the majority of those people getting food stamps are doing it because they CAN. Its easy to get. It is, after all, free money and they're entitled. I've met people that do it in the course of my life and they're not even ashamed to take it when they don't really need it. They're greedy, not needy and they don't care that it means that the truly needy get less.

I've had hard times in my live and NEVER did I ever consider government programs as the answer to my dilemma. I worked two jobs. Whatever I had to do, I did to make it through on my own. I lived without. I worked long days. I always managed.

The greatest nation on the face of the Earth became great because of values that are largely missing today. People had pride and worked hard to achieve the "American Dream". It is still achievable if you're willing to work for it. The wealthy in this country don't owe the rest of us anything. Sure, we can tax them till they're out of money supporting the rest of us, but in the end it comes down to people taking responsibility for themselves.

Don't get me wrong Nick. There are some truly needy people in this country and I don't begrudge taking care of those in need, but then there are those that have made a lifestyle around taking advantage of government programs, and that, I have a problem with.

AV

The vast majority of SNAP recipients are children, the elderly, and the disabled; 76% of SNAP benefits goes to children.

This is the food stamp recipient I know. I worked alongside him for two years, supporting different equipment for the same customer. Five years ago, his employer lost the contract he was supporting. The new contractor (not my employer) didn't hire any of the existing techs. He's busting his ass trying to just get back to where he was five years ago, and can't. The story is condensed. [Names] have been removed. Most of the words are his.

**

After two years of [excrement], I finally got a full time with [company], [Hardware OEM]'s local warranty contractor. I started at $9.50/hour and haven't gotten a raise since.

My job? m paid by the hour, but don't get paid for driving between customers. I'm given a certain number of parts each day and the addresses and scheduled appointment times. They want me to finish the calls in 8 hours of on site time. I'If there are appointments 50 miles apart at the same time, I have to call the customers and tell them I'll be late; if they say they can't wait, I don't get paid for that call.

Second job? [laughing] Right. The [derogatory name] schedule the appointments between 7am and 9pm, and I never know when before they are assigned. The only day I know I'll have off is Sunday.

Mileage reimbursement? Nope. They say it's because it's not paid time. Tax deduction? You're kidding! I already get all my withholding back every year.

Our second "baby" was twins. My wife was laid off just after I started this job because she had trouble with the pregnancy and was "abusing" her ability to take unpaid time off. Put her back to work? Is there something in your beer? With three kids in child care, we'd be losing money! Even if she can find a job that pays what I'm making, she wouldn't make enough to cover child care and transportation.

I hate the area we live in now, but it was the only apartment we could afford after we lost the house. We took a $20k loss when it sold, but we had some equity, so we only had $9,000 left to pay. And I'm so glad we sold that when we did; it was three years before another house sold in that development! Thank God the car is paid for; I just hope it lasts for another year or two, until I can get back on my feet.

Food stamps? Hell, yes! It's not even 100 bucks a week, but it buys milk & cereal, meat, and macaroni.

**

Its a shame that neither of the parents thought about the cost of having children. Honestly, why should that be my responsibility? I don't get that part. There are a lot of sad stories in the world and maybe this one falls into the needy category, but if you can't afford to raise a family, why do it? So, the rest of us bear the burden of it through our tax dollars? It just isn't fair.

I take care of my life and my familie's life, why can't other people do the same?

AV

In the discussion, Should Obama be Reelected, you were, pretty much, coming across as an advocate for third-party voting because both parties are out of control. You said that the government spent its money on the wrong things, should focus on infrastructure and that sort of thing. You called Obama (and Romney) a proven liar.

And now, you support Obama (the proven liar) and his increased (or continued) federal government spending to give food stamps to 48 million Americans, who would, according to you, presumably all die, or otherwise suffer needlessly, without them.

But you do play the "class envy" card, or "class demonizaton" card pretty well - and pretty often - which was (and is) evidenced by your smarmy criticism of Romney and how he came to earn (or otherwise obtain) his wealth. You can do that as well as any Democrat!

Nick "assumes" that these 48 million people "need" food stamps. He wonders what kind of country we've become when 48 million people "need" food assistance. I wonder which orifice he pulled the "need" assertion out from. Just because they're offered, and just because the offer is accepted, it doesn't automatically create a "need". Nick might make the assertion, but it doesn't make it true.

In the sentiment of, "Build it and they will come", we can also conclude, "Hand out freebies, and they will take them."

It's also painfully obvious that Nick neither understands, nor recognizes the ideology behind, the growth of the food stamp program. Intended as a safety net in the 1930s (and as a means to distribute free food commodities more effectively), it's become an intergenerational dependency program - and vote buying ploy; vote for the person who will give me more free stuff: phones, food stamps, rent subsidies, whatever; sell your vote to the highest bidder. And Nick supports such a thing.

The Food Stamp Program, which was started in the late 1930s, provided the "safety net" of which many people (including Nick) speak, and quite frankly, regardless of my libertarian views, I'd be willing to compromise and allow the federal government to provide such a "safety net" . But President Johnson expanded it in 1964, along with myriad other government assistance programs - all under the guise of the War on Poverty", and suddenly the percentage of people living under the poverty threshold started to increase, where it had been decreasing every decade since the Civil War (with the exception of the 1930s). But no, when people like Nick rally in favor of 48 million people receiving intergenerational dependency causing federal government assistance - which is actually harmful to both families and the country in the long run - all in the name of providing a "safety net", I can't help but think that Nick is either sadly misguided or terribly misinformed by calling it all a "safety net".

When 48 million Americans are occupying what used to be a "safety net", over and above all the other federal "safety nets" being advanced and supported, only a fool wouldn't recognize that it will all collapse under the weight of its own obligations.

By the way, on your "waiting" for my Advertising Food Stamps in Mexico" proof, you never asked me for it. Robo_Dev did - as an answer to my request for him to provide proof for his assertions. In essence, he answered a question with a question, thereby evading my original question, which I do not allow someone to get away with. So you can wait until hell freezes over, or until Robo_Dev provides the proof that I originally asked for. (Hell freezing over might come first.) Or, you could just research it yourself - and make sure you go to the Government Web site that lists all the government benefits made available to immigrants of all flavors, not just those from Mexico!

P.S. Nick said:

"The food stamp program is a symptom, Max. Until you stop spouting talking points about stereotypes and address the reason the program is even necessary, any complaint you may have about the size of the program is, at best, disingenuous."

Who in the hell is stereotyping people, Nick? Not me. Others might use the word, "freeloaders", or some other pejorative, but I don't. I focus on the role of government and the merits of the program itself. I focus on how the federal government programs have come to be vote-buying vehicles. You, Nick, are the one throwing around stereotypes - and being disingenuous (or misinformed) in the process.

But I do agree that the food stamp program is a symptom - a symptom of out of control federal government; a symptom of intergenerational dependency causing federal programs; and a symptom of a federal government that is bankrupting our country, both fiscally and morally.

Right. Ok. And the nation has no vested interest in children being born, right? Coz, you can just replace the citizens with H1Bs, LOL.
Where the fluck did you store your brain, AV?
Ok, first of all; let's say you're entitled to say where the nation spends your money. It's a long shot, but sure, OK.

Well, the Democrats have decided to put *their* tax money on keeping the poverty below riot level.
That then is *their* decision, with *their* money, and you should stop flucking whining about it.
You want to spend on something else than war and subsidies for megacorps? Stop voting Republican, simple as that.

First, you make a false assumption. My wanting to reduce the power of the two dominant parties does not preclude my favoring current government programs. Nor does my favoring a program mean I think there is nothing wrong with that program..

Second, where do I even mention Romney (except once, obliquely) or criticize how he made his money (at all)?

Third, you've already pointed out the history of the modern food stamp program, yet you lead with Obama as the 'owner' of that spending, adding the federal government as an afterthought. There have been no substantial changes to the program since the '90s, other than the number of participants. Shouldn't that be Clinton's spending? Or, given the root causes for the current levels of government spending, GWB's? Or, given the history you present, Johnson's? Or Nixon's? Or Reagan's? Or even Eisenhower's, Truman's, or FDR's?

And the minute you start talking about "intergenerational dependency", you are, intentionally or otherwise, stereotyping in the same manner as those who use less subtle terms.

AV, the wealthy may not owe anything to the rest of us as individuals, but they owe everything to the country that made it possible for them to become wealthy in the first place. That they think they are should have their wealth without having to contribute to American society is no less an entitlement mentality than that displayed by the Obamaphone...person.

What I'm talking about is when you have people that are already on welfare programs and they continue having more children they can't support. People like that have made a lifestyle of living off entitlement programs and they never get off of it. Welfare is supposed to be a helping hand, not a lifestyle.

This lifestyle is particularly rampant in our inner cities. Mostly single mothers and multiple fathers that are absent and do not support their children. In many cases they continue to have children so they get more government money. It isn't as if the children benefit from the welfare, they don't. The kids go without and the mother takes the money and spends it elsewhere. The government enables this lifestyle by just throwing money at it without any strings attached, such as making them work for it in some capacity or mandating some kind of job training so the person can eventually get off the system and support themselves.

Some states, like NJ, have workfare instead of welfare and it has been somewhat successful in preventing people from using the system as a permanent source of income.

Maintaining the poverty level with welfare programs for so many people is not an answer. The answer is growing the economy and providing good paying jobs for anyone that wants to work or even those that don't. It comes back to personal responsibility. The Republicans want to grow the economy and provide an atmosphere for business that will be attractive for investment. If we had a robust economy, people would be able to find decent paying jobs to support themselves. The Dems don't seem to have an answer for how to create a robust economy.

AV

GROSS OVERGENERALIZATION!!!

Are you aware of how the human reproductive cycle works?
Did you know that accidents happen? Did you know that most people, even pro-choice people, won't actually get abortions on just economic grounds?

Besides, having twins is an entirely different thing than having a single child at a time, and much more expensive even than getting two children one at a time.

Over here firing someone over pregnancy issues is *illegal* because it *negatively affects the entire economy*.

Have you ANY idea of how much it costs all of you to drive people from functional to dysfunctional? The cost, to the ENTIRE SOCIETY, of messing up people's lives is *prohibitive*. You have no idea.

I think the US government should be providing additional support for Canadians. The Canadian government doesn't hand out quite enough and people actually have to work now. I think the US government and YOUR tax dollars would go a long way in helping Canadians find more relaxation and time to enjoy their glorious country. I mean, seriously! What kind of R&R do you really expect to enjoy when living in a central American dust bowl, the ever flooding and tornado ridden coasts or the unbearably hot, stay inside your trailer with the A/C on Nevada, Florida or southern California? Face it, Canadians have the land, the sea, the trees, the snow capped mountains and so much more to enjoy, just not the time due to having to work every day. America could really help out and start making Canadians feel better about their neighbours to the south who rape the country of resources. Just cough up more dough, quadruple the welfare rate and let Canadians enjoy their country for once! C'mon America, work more so others don't have to!

We shouldn't be, but that is a different discussion entirely. We as a country are seriously broke. Unfortunately, once you get into a war its not so easy to get out.

AV

We as a country have the single largest economy on the planet, with a 2010 GDP somewhere between $14.4 trillion and $15.1 trillion (let's split the difference and call it $14.75 trillion).

The expected average federal tax rate (Tax receipts/GDP) is expected to be about 14.8%, meaning the federal government would receive about $2.18 trillion in tax collections. If the overall federal tax rate was at the post WW2 average of 18.5%, the federal government would receive about $2.73 trillion, about $550 billion more (deficit reduction!). If we eliminate the war spending, that money can either be not spent at all (more deficit reduction!) or we could spend some of it on badly needed infrastructure projects (creating jobs and putting people to work, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for food stamps - deficit reduction again!) and not spend the rest (even more deficit reduction!).

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

We are living in a dream in this country. Even if war spending is eliminated, it doesn't address the existing debt and future spending on entitlements when all the baby boomers retire. That is huge. And, we have a sputtering economy. Not enough investment in America to sustain itself.

The re-election of Obama was a bummer for business. All they can look forward to now is higher taxes and being straddled with Obamacare.

AV

You've been paying FICA & Medicare premiums, I've been paying them, even Max has been paying them. If they are "entitlements", it's because, having paid into them, we're entitled to receive from them.

The problem is not that "we're broke", the problem is that we don't want to pay for what we get from government.

The federal government's share of GDP in 2010 was 14.9%, 4.5 points lower than its postwar average of 18.5%. The CBO projects that share to drop to 14.8% for 2011.

I'm not making an argument for making war just in order to create jobs (a component of Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex warning - which he didn't really heed himself, by the way), but Nick's assertion that spending money on infrastructure projects would create jobs, while totally ignoring the fact that reduced spending on war would actually cost jobs, doesn't make any sense at all. At best, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul (taking Peter's job away, giving it to Paul). You might make the argument that Paul deserves the spending more than Peter, but it renders your logic ....... well, it renders it illogical.

If you've allowed yourself to believe the idiocy that government cannot create jobs.

Regarding your comment, ... stop spending on war, start spending on infrastructure (which would, you said, create jobs)", I said, all that's doing, at best, is taking one job for the purpose of creating another.

Again, you evaded what I really said, and strung up something that I did not say to argue against. Typical for someone without a legitimate rebuttal.

We do pay into them, but when the program was designed, it wasn't meant to sustain people for 20 or 30 years. Life expectancies today are much greater than in the past. There were more people paying into the system in the past as well. This has caused a shortfall in our obligations and its only going to get worse if they don't find a way to fix the program.

AV

Wouldn't the returning solders, without a war to fight ,simply add many more thousands of people to the unemployed? Of course they are employABLE and would be offered preference over the non-enlisted employment seekers, but what about an engineering firm that has 30 army engineers applying for the same job? More unemployed, more living on the government handouts (instead of fighting for a paycheck). It seems that it wouldn't help anyone (financially) to bring them all home, just saying...! What about the drug use from returning soldiers who would find it hard to be gainfully employed again, have a really hard time adjusting to civilian life, turn to drugs because they are living in 8-mile etc.? Would the prisons not fill with tens of thousands of soldiers without hope or new direction? I'm not knocking soldiers for a split second, I tip my hat to anyone who fights for their nation, even those who do so feeling it's not the right reason to fight. However, if you can't keep your existing population employed, and it's caused a SERIOUS financial issue for the nation (just as many other nations are found in the same boat) how do you expect to deal with tens of thousands more returning home and seeking a future? I think your numbers need some more consideration before being able to show such a conclusive solution.

"We're supposed to be the greatest country in the world, but we don't look like it."

Um, yeah. At least reality has set in for you guys now. Sorry it was at the cost of home, marriages and livelihoods but that's what it usually takes when countries slowly start to lose their place.

I think it's illogical to complain about the government keeping people from starving, which is what food stamps does, while ignoring that the same government spends hundreds of billions of dollars to obtain and maintain the capability to destroy other countries, even the world, in the name of "national security".

Either it's about all the spending or it's not about the spending at all.

If America didn't spend money on war, what the heck would they do with it? Being at war is all the US government knows, think of the downtrodden folk growing up in the many war torn countries around the world, only difference is it's THERE and not on your own land. All today's youth has known is their country at war. Thankfully it's not on your own doorstep/my back fence, but that's how they excuse fighting somewhere else, 'stop 'em before they come here'. I guess the Japanese in WWII scared the US government enough that they'd rather pay to fight in other nations than face defending their own shores...which didn't work so great in Hawaii, lesson learned, 'fight THERE, not HERE'.

Where do I start! We should be rebuilding our infrastructure in this country from top to bottom, partnering with private enterprise, of course. We're supposed to be the greatest country in the world, but we don't look like it. The roads, the bridges, the rail system are all falling apart.

Where's our Keystone Pipeline? Maybe we should even consider an aquaduct system to help relieve drought-stricken areas of our country.

I can think of lots of better uses for the money than war and nation building in areas like Afghanistan where they just blow up everything we build anyway.

AV

"It's a shame they didn't consider the cost of water when they decided where their ancestors put their homes"

so many of those people are without a job or a roof over the heads (for whatever reason). If it were just as simple as giving those in need a home and some form of gainful employment, I would be all in. I know too many folks that have to swollow their pride and go to food banks or collect food stamps just to feed their families because they can't find a job. I'm a trained office administrator, experienced waitress, and have 17 years experience working in a local carpet factory on the floor. I've been jobless for 13 months and without umemployment for two months. I've had two interviews for the about 25 jobs that I have applied for and the two employers both told me that they had an extraordinary amount of applications for the jobs they had posted. I happen to be lucky enough to have a husband that has a job, many are single income families without a significant other.

This week, our local food bank did their annual food drive in conjunction with our local radio station and a few other sponsers. Our community did fantastic; over 66,000 lbs of food and monitary donations were collected; even in the cold rain of the day, our community came out in force. Things are tight at our home, but I always make a commitment of at least 10.00 in non-parishable goods. I always figure I'm greatful for the times that it was there when my mom was a single parent raising my four siblings (I was out on my own by then) and I never know when I may need the service myself in the future.

We're coming into the season of giving and being thankful for what we have. I give when I can and am truly thankful for what we have. Have a happy weekend everyone and please give when you can.

Lee

but that was 20% less than last year's 83,000 lbs. You also identified the high unemployment rate this year compared to previous years so it would make sense that fewer people are donating to the Food Banks; to compound the problem there is a greater demand on the Food Banks because the unemployed that used to donate while employed have become patrons; it becomes a snowball effect.

thank you for putting a different perspective on it. I hadn't really thought about the 20% less given this year until you mentioned the high unemployment/jobless rate. There are fewer folks in the community working and too many vying for the same job. It's a tough economy for sure . I'm sure it'll be a tough year for the foodbank, rougher than last year.

It is admirable for you to think of others even when you have little. What goes around comes around.

That's the sort of thinking that helps our country rise above the petty politics of us and them, and helps us to remember there is only 'us'.

I try to live with the premise to give what I can in the hopes that if I ever need that type of assistance mayself, others will be there to help point me in proper directions. I do wish more folks thought the same way though, seems there are too many "only us" folks, like you and I, out there.

(Although I don't think it's their intent.)

My position is that the federal government should not be in the food handing out business. (Perhaps very limited in certain situations.) Citizens in local communities can take care of their own needs themselves, as it should be - and as you illustrated.

The problem with discussing SO MANY issues around this place is that people confuse government solutions with private or local solutions. Not all problems should rely on government to provide the solutions. I'm not opposed to giving attention to the problem, I'm opposed to giving government attention to the problem, especially if it means turning its citizens into a dependent class - which is exactly what's happening.

It's actually MORE humane and compassionate to want people free of government dependency instead of being reliant on it. (Maybe it's time I start attacking your values by calling you two the Scrooges.)