You really can't have a serious country and let children go hungry, but the key to it is that money should not be involved at all. There simply needs to be some place within walking distance where children could go for cheeseburgers, fries, and shakes or whatever. THAT would cost some tiny fraction of the drug-stamp program.
Not sure I agree with that one. Where do you draw the line? If you feed somone else's children, then the parents just spend more money on instant gratification. The more you subsidize their expenses, the more money they have to spend irresponsibly. You can't have a serious country and let children go without health care? You can't have a serious country and let children go without dental care? Can't have a serious country and let children go withotu new clother? shoes?
Just because some liberal redistributionist is hiding behind the children, doesn't mean that we should instantly surrender.
There are only two reasons that people don't have enough money. 1. Misfortune, and 2. Irresponsibility. Misfortune (like catastrophic health costs) is by far the less common reason that people go on welfare.
Kibble.
Shelf-stable, nutritionally-balanced (40/30/30), bags of kibble (or other plain preparation like a just-add-water cereal or mash) that are free to any and all to use. It would cost far less than food stamps, it would probably be far more humane, and if people get tired of kibble, they can figure out a way to get real money to buy different food. (I also would predict the rise of a viable 3rd-party market in kibble flavor additives.)
Right. In the olden days this magical place was called a church.
It was a Christian gathering place where neighbors helped their neighbors. It provided charity, support, and nourishment for both the body and soul to those in need. It was wildly successful and lifted up entire communities and strengthened family values. However it was tax exempt and therefore deemed not useful to the government and thus it was replaced.
Anyway, I took care of my children while they were growing up. Their needs ,and to the extent that I could , wants came first. There was a blind couple in our town that put two children through college without the government's help. He sold peanuts and she sewed.
You need to re-read that statement.
First, you give in to the liberal argument that we can’t let children go hungry. This implies that those children would go hungry if the givers in society do not provide them food.
That is false. They do not fend for themselves because we make it too easy not to. So they just continue to parasite off the workers and givers in society. And just how much are we supposed to sacrifice for their selfish decisions? If they are on welfare, they sure as hell ought to be using condoms when they fornicate.
Second, you say that the root cause is that money is involved. Even if money is not involved (or some sort of credit/debit system), the food and the distribution means have value. Whether you want to convert that value to a monetary replacement is irrelevant. It still have value, which means that it costs someone, that someone must pay for it in one way or another.
The root cause is very simple. Socialists have created a welfare class that feels entitled to live off the labor of others. They are fully capable of working, but the culture of the welfare class is that they shouldn’t have to and they don’t want to.
It is UNJUST to keep people ENSLAVED to a welfare class. It is also UNJUST to ENSLAVE those who work to provide for the welfare class.
We need to stop rewarding people for parasiting off the system and get them doing some sort of work that benefits those who are paying their way. Eventually they may get the idea, “Hey, I’m working anyway. Why don’t I go get a better job and one that I actually like?” This will help them to move themselves from the class of parasites to the class of workers and givers.
YOU can't be serious. These children haven't sprung from cabbage patches. If they have parents the children are their responsibility. If a parent does not fulfill their responsibility the parent should lose the children and go to jail. If they are orphans they need to be adopted or go to an orphanage.
“You really can’t have a serious country and let children go hungry”
Then I despair of there ever being a serious country. Because as children are more fed the bar will constantly be raised, until the definition of starvation includes people who did eat but were at one point uncertain whether they would. Oh, wait, we’ve already defined it that way.
Advance of welfare I’ve heard described as like a starving man who eats the crumbs left on his plate at the end of a long awaited meal more ravenously than he did the steak in the main course. The better things are the more we complain, to an extent. Also, as Malthus taught us and no one listened long ago, “poor laws” create more poor people. Because there will always be a margin where you could get free stuff or work for yourself, and there is an undeniable economic incentive for people to drop independence and go poor. Hence charity always results in more need.
“the key to it is that money should not be involved at all”
Two terms for you:
1. TANSTAAFL
2. Opportunity cost
You really can’t have a serious country and let children go hungry,....Surely, ye jest. What the hell are the schools for? Free breakfast, free lunch. The schools need the revenue ya know.
I agree with you. We are not a nation if we let our fellow citizens die of starvation for “mine! Mine! Mine!” We pay taxes that all may share in national defense, police protection (insofar as they can), infrastructure, etc.; a little assurance of a safety net is warranted too, as even charitable churches miss a few. That said, that assistance must be minimal to encourage people to stand up and fend for themselves: food provided must be bare essentials demanding some effort of preparation by the recipient. Raw/frozen vegetables, beans/rice/flour, mundane meats, eggs, bulk cheese or peanut butter - all quantities small enough to discourage resale or waste, all mundane enough few will want to stay on it (though it be little less than my own shopping list).
The odd problem at this point is: the war on poverty has been WON. Between practical prohibition of viable living below the official poverty line, and the confiscation of funds to pay off those on the wrong side of it, there is no real poverty. Alas, those who depend on a “war on poverty” must perpetuate it, defining up what they oppose and attacking as unacceptable that which is tantamount to luxury.
A nation cannot survive if it lets its poor die in the streets.
Our problem is facilitating our poor to die of morbid obesity.