Hunger and Homelessness

[rjs330]

Yes, let us not provide for the poor mother and her children. Giving them free stuff is not helping them....and compassion is just a word liberals use. Tough love and rejecting them will help them more.
Less compassion and help, more thought and prayers. This is how we show we care at the same time save money and feel better of ourselves for 'thinking' about the struggling single mothers and their fat little starving children. Like everything else, hunger and homelessness disappear when a large enough wall is erected between the home compound and the outside world. Well it may not completely disappear until they perish from hunger and homelessness, but it sure helps to forget when not seeing or hearing about it.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Is there some sort of handbook or something?

 

[rjs330]

I don't see an article. How many of these were addicts prior to being homeless? How many addicts became addicts after a medical procedure (opioid)? How many became addicts after becoming homeless due to despair?

Could it be because of the ultra-processes cheap food that the government allows on their EBT cards. More bang for the buck.

Who's fault is that. Don't come back on your high horse and blame the people for low income.

So far to it's opinion or your facts.

With your words of wisdom may I ask what you are going to tell your politician to solve the problem. Until then more money.

You are asking an aweful lot of questions that don't have answers. Much of the homeless and/or poor research is quite lacking and doesn't answer some of the deeper questions. I think the reasons are rather obvious.

But there are some facts that I gave you. You don't have to believe them if you don't want to.

Obesity doesn't happen if you are going hungry.

Binge drinking is a personal choice who else is to blame? You? None else forced the alcohol down their throats.

More money isn't solving anything. If something isn't solving the problem why keep doing it? It's a serious question.

 

[rjs330]

Can't that person not be saved ? Can't we give kindness to someone suffering addiction & mental health illness (most people who have addiction has been traumatized in some form) why would you not want to see them help others like him ,

Kindness isn't letting them wallow on the streets in their addictions and mental health disorders? How is that kindness. Jesus said to give them food and clothes. He didn't say to provide them with drugs and alcohol.

Kindness isn't letting them live on the streets in their own feces and hugging a bottle of booze or sticking needles into their arms. Kindness isn't letting them wander around in the elements talking to themselves, seeing and hearing things as the sun, rain or snow pours down on their heads.

 

[rjs330]

Believe as you wish, this is not leftist propaganda. It is directly from the Christian Forum first-hand experience.

No I think that's your interpretation. I think you need to look a little closer cause I've literally never read anything like that in these forums. And in this thread no one said anything like that either.

have seen it on here within the last 6 months. The posters were asked if they supported financial assistance for the children who were born to the parents (mothers of course) who could not afford to take care of the children and they stated (paraphrase) why would I, I did not have sex to create the kid, the kid is the responsibility of the mother. The proffered solution was she should "keep her legs closed."

This is another example of not listening. That's all your heard or interpreted. What has been done is not working and people should not be forced to take care of other people's children. The parents ARE responsible and should absolutely not just be handed money. That is harmful to them AND the kids. It's what can perpetuate the problem. The PROOF is evident. Poverty has not been wiped out despite the fact that 75% of government spending goes to welfare programs. We need to stop what we've been doing.

am against abortion, so I believe we need to remove the barriers to keeping the child by providing financial aide AND provide better sex education coupled with free birth control. The aide system absolutely needs revamping, and until that happens, the children need food, shelter, and educational resources or they will likely become another negative statistic.

Here's what you are missing. We DO all those things. We provide financial aid, we give food, shelter and educational resources. We pay for all of that and yet the kids STILL become another negative statistic. How is any of that helping if the outcomes are still the same?

I am fortunate to have never needed the system, but those on the system have my genuine sympathy as disgust, disdain, and superiority are palpable from many both here and in real life.

You are judging others. You are interpreting telling the truth as disgust, disdain or superiority. Jesus told the truth about the depravity of man. Would you interpret that as the same? I doubt it.

Sometimes the truth is hard. And until we are able to recognize the hard truths we will struggle with the right solutions. We will just keep doing the same things over and over again hoping to get different results.

The one poster is pointing out the problem. How many kids should you expect the taxpayers to pay for? I'd like a number.

You see this is the problem. Doing the exact same thing, but expecting a different result. That doesn't work in any part of life.

 

[JustOneWay]

Sorry. I didn't realize that was called " Bible bashing"

Anyway, the federal government is the worst charity to solve hunger and homelessness. You're better off volunteering to do it yourself, or donating to World Vision, Samaritans Purse.

Interesting. World vision and Samaritan's Purse and individual volunteering is already a thing and hunger and homelessness is still as bad as ever. Obviously it is just not enough.

Funnier yet is both World Vision and Samaritan's Purse receive cash from the US government. Perhaps the 'worst charity' should stop giving to these other charities?

 

[Arcangl86]

Sorry. I didn't realize that was called " Bible bashing"

Anyway, the federal government is the worst charity to solve hunger and homelessness. You're better off volunteering to do it yourself, or donating to World Vision, Samaritans Purse.

The US Federal Government spends $1.25T a year for welfare programs, and that's not even counting our old age programs which can easily be considered welfare spending. The estimated amount given to charity in the US, and this is to all sources including religious and cultural institutions, is around $485B. So even leaving aside retirement programs the Federal government spends 3 times as much money as all philanthropy in the US, and much of that philanthropic giving doesn't go to help the needy. Even assuming a higher level of inefficiency in the federal programs then non-governmental programs, we are still talking about a much larger amount of aid being provided by the feds.

 

[Laodicean60]

we are still talking about a much larger amount of aid being provided by the feds.

I hear you and I am an opponent to government spending/debt. I believe cuts are needed in all our spending. I proposed in the OP part of what I think needs to be addressed in the OP and I have written my politician my thoughts on that issue. It's going to take creative thinking if we desire to reduce homelessness and hunger for Americans. Our politicians are just as ignorant as we are about solving this issue and may need some help from the peoples. Peace

 

[Lily76_]

Kindness isn't letting them wallow on the streets in their addictions and mental health disorders? How is that kindness. Jesus said to give them food and clothes. He didn't say to provide them with drugs and alcohol.

Kindness isn't letting them live on the streets in their own feces and hugging a bottle of booze or sticking needles into their arms. Kindness isn't letting them wander around in the elements talking to themselves, seeing and hearing things as the sun, rain or snow pours down on their heads.

But helping get clean through charity services for the homeless getting them clean through Jesus addiction recovery help them deal with their trauma giving them tool to deal with their mental health i was once homeless i was addicted i am 3 months clean i have trauma & hear voices i am christian and i want to help others like me .

 

[Hazelelponi]

I guess mothers and their children will be needing bootstraps because the republicans are actively trying to provide less for hungry mothers and their children.

Tough love....

"Unlike other federal nutrition programs, WIC funding has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, with Republicans and Democrats committed to ensuring every eligible mother and baby who applies for the program can receive benefits. That consensus is now fraying, with House Republicans pushing to pare back WIC spending this year, arguing tough cuts are needed across the government amid the nation’s mounting debt.


The result, advocates and state-based WIC administrators fear, is that they may have to begin putting people on waitlists to receive aid like breastfeeding support, baby formula and other nutrition assistance."

Food aid for low-income mothers, babies becomes spending flashpoint

Advocates and state administrators fear they may have to begin putting people on waitlists to receive WIC benefits if Congress doesn't increase funding in January.

www.politico.com

I read somewhere was asking their state for 40 dollars a month in food stamps for kids who get reduced price lunches during the summers, so that it's easier to feed kids in summer for low income people and the Republican governor gave a horribly worded no... I was disappointed in that.

Food right now is becoming an ever greater issue because of the skyrocketing inflation at the store. In the last three months the cost of eggs have risen $3.00 USD where I live.

It's crazy watching prices increase.

But at the same time we're a nation going broke. As a result I think we need to prioritize our national spending and stop giving it to people overseas and start helping our own citizens instead.

 

[JustOneWay]

I read somewhere was asking their state for 40 dollars a month in food stamps for kids who get reduced price lunches during the summers, so that it's easier to feed kids in summer for low income people and the Republican governor gave a horribly worded no... I was disappointed in that.

Food right now is becoming an ever greater issue because of the skyrocketing inflation at the store. In the last three months the cost of eggs have risen $3.00 USD where I live.

It's crazy watching prices increase.

But at the same time we're a nation going broke. As a result I think we need to prioritize our national spending and stop giving it to people overseas and start helping our own citizens instead.

Inflation is almost back to normal. The only problem is when prices go up they rarely come back down, so people are seeing prices still high and they immediately blame high inflation.

Massachusetts raised the taxes on the millionaires in the state, and now they have increased revenue by 1.5 billion last year to feed the children and fix roads....

$1.5 billion in estimated revenue: A look at the Mass. 'millionaire's tax' first year

Advocates promised the new tax would bring in over $1 billion a year in new revenue. And they quickly saw their predictions surpassed: the state Department of Revenue estimates it will generate over $1.5 billion this fiscal year.

www.wbur.org

Supporters of Massachusetts' Fair Share Amendment are celebrating the first year of the so-called "millionaire's tax," arguing the new revenue it's generating will bring significant improvements for public transportation and education.

That money is being allocated through the state budget to things like universal free meals in public schools, tuition-free community college, and repairs to the MBTA.

 

[Laodicean60]

prices go up they rarely come back down

Thats for sure or they come down too slow. Tax rich individuals maybe 90% like RDKirk said that Eisenhower wanted or did in another thread. Leave corporations alone because usually consumers bite the bullet. This may slow Bill Gates down from buying all of Americas farmland. Ultimately government needs to budget because even the rich's money will run out.

 

[RoBo1988]

The US Federal Government spends $1.25T a year for welfare programs, and that's not even counting our old age programs which can easily be considered welfare spending. The estimated amount given to charity in the US, and this is to all sources including religious and cultural institutions, is around $485B. So even leaving aside retirement programs the Federal government spends 3 times as much money as all philanthropy in the US, and much of that philanthropic giving doesn't go to help the needy. Even assuming a higher level of inefficiency in the federal programs then non-governmental programs, we are still talking about a much larger amount of aid being provided by the feds.

Okay then. Just voluntarily pay extra taxes.

 

[rjs330]

Interesting. World vision and Samaritan's Purse and individual volunteering is already a thing and hunger and homelessness is still as bad as ever. Obviously it is just not enough.

Funnier yet is both World Vision and Samaritan's Purse receive cash from the US government. Perhaps the 'worst charity' should stop giving to these other charities?

At some point the question has to be asked, "Why isn't it enough?" We have charities galore, we have 75% of our budget going to welfare programs. We've been giving a lot of money for 50 years now, increasing it every cycle, "Why isn't it enough?"

What's the causes behind it and what do we need to do differently if what we are doing currently isn't working?

 

[Mayzoo]

No I think that's your interpretation. I think you need to look a little closer cause I've literally never read anything like that in these forums. And in this thread no one said anything like that either.

This is another example of not listening. That's all your heard or interpreted. What has been done is not working and people should not be forced to take care of other people's children. The parents ARE responsible and should absolutely not just be handed money. That is harmful to them AND the kids. It's what can perpetuate the problem. The PROOF is evident. Poverty has not been wiped out despite the fact that 75% of government spending goes to welfare programs. We need to stop what we've been doing.

Here's what you are missing. We DO all those things. We provide financial aid, we give food, shelter and educational resources. We pay for all of that and yet the kids STILL become another negative statistic. How is any of that helping if the outcomes are still the same?

You are judging others. You are interpreting telling the truth as disgust, disdain or superiority. Jesus told the truth about the depravity of man. Would you interpret that as the same? I doubt it.

Sometimes the truth is hard. And until we are able to recognize the hard truths we will struggle with the right solutions. We will just keep doing the same things over and over again hoping to get different results.

The one poster is pointing out the problem. How many kids should you expect the taxpayers to pay for? I'd like a number.

You see this is the problem. Doing the exact same thing, but expecting a different result. That doesn't work in any part of life.

I will try to keep in mind being beaten up and ceaselessly insulted as a child for using the school's free lunch program and the insults hurled at my mother and the other 3 women I have known who were on the system (deadbeat, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], drug addict) is "the truth". Thank you for that insight.

I stated the programs need to be properly revamped. I never suggested the program should continue as it is, nor did I say it should pay indefinitely for infinite children. However, I feel funding the food for one of three + children or no funding whatsoever (the recommendation from many on here) is appalling.

I recommend providing resources (food, subsidized daycare, medical care, subsidized housing) for a limited time with the caveat that a technical school or job program will also be funded. At the end of the reasonable time frame, wean down to no or very limited payments after they have had time to complete courses to improve job prospects and obtain a job. Employment assistance so they can obtain a more than a minimum wage job would be very helpful (see below).

However, we also need to try to keep in mind TWO full-time jobs at minimum wage earns a person a whopping gross of $30,160. Take out of that SSI, Medicare, local taxes (if they have any), medical insurance (if they are lucky enough to have employer offered Health care), rent (mortgage), food, utilities, childcare, school supplies, clothes, gas, insurance, medical bills (deductible on the catastrophic-only healthcare plan approx 3500.00 per person) and you are in the negative. So what do they give up? Medical care? Food? Some of the people on the system are employed. Some have two full-time jobs. So, do we just cut them off because their time frame is up?

God bless you and yours, and I am not being facetious. Truly, may God bless you.

 

[Laodicean60]

technical school or job program will also be funded.

Speaking of which. To build technical schools I don't think the government should fund this I was thinking more in line of corporations to fund this. Mandate them or shame them to the public, something lol. If you look at all the companies in the S&P 500 ETF, if all those companies put 1% of income to build technical schools that specializes in the skill set that those companies need it might help some people especially in low-income areas. These same corporate schools will create competition with colleges which might lower cost. Have a scholarship program for seniors who excel stem courses in high school. They can even teach life skills, but I think High School should be teach senior that; finances that pertain to life. buying home, economy, investing, utilities........

 

[RoBo1988]

To build technical schools I don't think the government should fund this I was thinking more in line of corporations to fund this

That may not be necessary.

Depending upon where you live, there are vocational technical schools, that by day, are for 11th and 12th graders; and have adult Ed in the evening. Where I live, there's one that covers around 5 counties, and another that covers the Cincinnati area south of us.

They teach trades, nursing, culinary, tech classes etc,
They are funded by property taxes if you live in the area, plus tuition from students.

 

[rjs330]

I hear you and I am an opponent to government spending/debt. I believe cuts are needed in all our spending. I proposed in the OP part of what I think needs to be addressed in the OP and I have written my politician my thoughts on that issue. It's going to take creative thinking if we desire to reduce homelessness and hunger for Americans. Our politicians are just as ignorant as we are about solving this issue and may need some help from the peoples. Peace

Far too often the politicians aren't willing to spend the time and energy to try and figure something else out. It's much easier just to to spend the money just to say they are doing something. It's either spend or cut spending. Quite frankly neither one of those options is really the answer.

 

[rjs330]

I will try to keep in mind being beaten up and ceaselessly insulted as a child for using the school's free lunch program and the insults hurled at my mother and the other 3 women I have known who were on the system (deadbeat, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], drug addict) is "the truth". Thank you for that insight.

I stated the programs need to be properly revamped. I never suggested the program should continue as it is, nor did I say it should pay indefinitely for infinite children. However, I feel funding the food for one of three + children or no funding whatsoever (the recommendation from many on here) is appalling.

I recommend providing resources (food, subsidized daycare, medical care, subsidized housing) for a limited time with the caveat that a technical school or job program will also be funded. At the end of the reasonable time frame, wean down to no or very limited payments after they have had time to complete courses to improve job prospects and obtain a job. Employment assistance so they can obtain a more than a minimum wage job would be very helpful (see below).

However, we also need to try to keep in mind TWO full-time jobs at minimum wage earns a person a whopping gross of $30,160. Take out of that SSI, Medicare, local taxes (if they have any), medical insurance (if they are lucky enough to have employer offered Health care), rent (mortgage), food, utilities, childcare, school supplies, clothes, gas, insurance, medical bills (deductible on the catastrophic-only healthcare plan approx 3500.00 per person) and you are in the negative. So what do they give up? Medical care? Food? Some of the people on the system are employed. Some have two full-time jobs. So, do we just cut them off because their time frame is up?

God bless you and yours, and I am not being facetious. Truly, may God bless you.

God bless you too. I like your ideas and definitely support them. My ideas are very similar. Most people are very willing to help others who are also making some efforts themselves.

There are those who are not willing to do any of that. Both the poor people or those politically left.

One of the things that you didn't mention that I had would add is that the father's should be forced to pay as well. They helped create the child they should be held responsible for paying for them. Their social security number and IDs should attached so that they are required to pay regardless of when they work or where they work. If the kid grows up and the father hasn't paid and gets a job they should be paying the state back for supporting the family for them.

Dead beat dads are as big of a problem if not more so than the mothers.

 

[rjs330]

That may not be necessary.

Depending upon where you live, there are vocational technical schools, that by day, are for 11th and 12th graders; and have adult Ed in the evening. Where I live, there's one that covers around 5 counties, and another that covers the Cincinnati area south of us.

They teach trades, nursing, culinary, tech classes etc,
They are funded by property taxes if you live in the area, plus tuition from students.

I have no problem with helping to pay for someone to educate themselves. As long as it's a career oriented education where they can go out and actually get a job.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Okay then. Just voluntarily pay extra taxes.

Voluntarily over-contributing money to the government just sends it to a slush fund, where it can be used for anything and everything. FBI budget, a new tank, road construction, furnishing a senator's office, etc. A proper appropriations bill (with associated tax increases) designates a purpose for the money being collected. I much prefer the latter.