In the news this morning was an article on the huge number of New Hampshire residents who are dependent upon assistance for some or all of their food supply. World hunger is of great concern to me, and I have done a lot of independent research on the subject. I understand some of the political forces that create and/or exacerbate hunger in many countries, yet it still amazes me that we have a problem here in the US. We have a relatively stable government, and we certainly have the resources to feed all of our citizens, yet people still go hungry. I don't get it. This morning's article stated that 2.7 MILLION pounds of food passed through New Hampshire's food banks last year, yet many, many people still suffered from hunger on a regular basis. It seems to me that, like our country's welfare programs, "we" approach the problem all wrong. Oddly enough, many of the food assistance programs are operated by or in cooperation with churches. Doesn't it say in the Bible something about giving a man a fish vs. teaching that same man to fish for his own food? (Sorry, I can't even paraphrase that right now, LOL!). I wonder why all of these homeless and/or hungry people are not being taught to garden and/or raise small animals for food (chickens, rabbits, fish, etc).(Having said that, I am reminded of one example of such a program- the Cabrini Greens project in Chicago, where they not only produce food for themselves, but sell the surplus to restaurants. They even raise fish in tanks in the basement of the tenement buildings). If people don't have the land of their own, what about churches offering the use of their property? I know that a church in my area sponsered several families of Loatian refugees a few years ago. The families were housed either with church members or in donated rental properties when they first arrived. It took a while for them to learn how to speak English, drive, get jobs, etc, so the members of the congregation all pitched in and created a community garden on the grounds of their church to help supply food for the families. It was a huge sucess and lasted for several years until the families were established enough to make it on their own. I was sad to see the project end, and wondered why it could not have been continued for the benefit of other needy families. It seems to me that if some of our tax dollars were re-directed towards teaching people to be more self-sufficient our entire society would benefit. Why hand out free money to welfare recipients when they could provide at least a portion of their own needs through their own efforts? Actually, I donate large sums of money each year to Heifer Project International because they DO try to help people provide for themselves. Their program is set up so that each recipient will pass on the knowledge they have gained, as well as offspring from their own breeding stock to help another needy family get started. Every year I ask them how much longer it will take until every family's needs are met, and I never get an answer! I don't know- the very thought is overwhelming to me. Any one else have any insights to offer?

-- Elizabeth (ekfla@aol.com), October 17, 2001

Answers

My husband always has said that if the goverment would "pay" companies to employ people that needed jobs it would pay off in the long run by the employees paying taxes, getting health benefits, have a good feeling about making their own living and teaching their children the work ethic. Doesn't seem like it is such a hard idea to deal with. I too have always thought that same way about hunger and medical benefits in this great nation. Now with all the tragic news in NYC money seems to be flowing in from everywhere. NOT that I don't think that it should not becasue it really should be... you hear....but we have events everyday in someone's life that is a tragic event also for some people. I know that the Red Cross and other agencies do all they can do all the time too but it certainly makes you wonder doesn't it. But I think also that people have to try and help themselves also. If I had to live in a big city (oh horrors) and who knows what the future brings...but I would still try to have some kind of garden...clean up the empty lots..grow veggies in baskets on the fire escapes...you get the idea. I agree that we should help them to help themselves also... I think also that a lot of the homeless are people that were released from mental hospitals because of goverment cut backs and they really can't care for themselves. Makes each of us see the need to get involved in our local soup kitchens and women's shelters. i suppose we are our brother's keepers.

-- Helena (windyacs@npacc.net), October 17, 2001.

I have known two of the people who used those pantries. One lady"'s husband lost his job and neither was able to find full-time work for weeks. The other split up with her husband (for a reason of safety) and she was only able to work part-time for months. The child support was enough to pay for day-care for the days she worked, but you cannot really support 3 people on the kind of income she was making. She had a college degree, too, but the split with her husband was sudden and it isn't always possible to get a full time job the minute you need it: it took her 6 months to be fully employed. A lot of people are just earning enough to get by, and even if they have a savings account, most people cannot live off it for very long if it becomes their sole soutce of money due to divorce, death, illness, or unemployement.

-- (hooperterri@prodigy.net), October 17, 2001.

Another good argument for stocking up on basic necessities.

-- Elizabeth (ekfla@aol.com), October 17, 2001.

I too wonder, Elizabeth. My own opinions are these:

1)So many people benefit directly from the welfare system via jobs that it is nigh onto impossible for any serious reform to occur. For example, our local paper lauded an individual previously on welfare who was so good at finding out the ways to get money and disseminating the info to others that she landed herself a job with (guess who) the welfare department. You think people like that want to see welfare go? Absolutely not.

2) Also, anytime someone tries to start some kind of "workfare" program (say picking up city trash or what have you) the unions start whining about lost jobs, work hours,"slave labor" etc. A friend just had a similar issue with garden variety volunteers doing some work in a nearby city park. The union whined, and the workers got paid. It's absurd. The same thing occurs with prison labor--taxpayers wouldn't pay nearly so much for prisons if prisoners were allowed to work. It would also keep them out of trouble.

3) We also had a story last year in the paper about "clients" of the food banks not taking certain free foods (like dried beans and grains) because they wanted convenience foods like hotdogs that were easy to cook. I'm sorry, but if you still have preferences you are NOT starving and you shouldn't be getting free anything. I'm sure in many homes it is "take it or leave it, and be grateful for what you have". It is also truly amazing to see what people with foodstamps buy--99% junk food. No wonder there is so much trafficking in foodstamps. They should be able to get only very basic (not highly processed) food from the four food groups--milk, eggs, cheese, bread, meat or soy and fruits and veggies.

4) I think they allow you to own too many things and be on assistance. I don't want to see anyone go hungry, but 3 hots and a cot should be enough aid, along with basic medical care.

Some of the low-rent apartments I see are veritable palaces compared to places that working people are living in and paying full rent for. That is flat out wrong.

San Francisco, for example, was thinking of turning either Treasure Island or The Presidio (or both) into low-cost housing--but of course, normal run of the mill taxpayers would not be able to qualify. Haven't you ever wanted to live somewhere yet sadly shook your head because it was too expensive and moved? Well, if you're on welfare, you can live anywhere you want, because someone else is paying for it.

And stores don't help either. Every year one of the big stores gives a $100 shopping spree to underprivileged kids, and while I appreciate the fact that they care, I deplore the fact that these kids are learning that ONLY NEW IS GOOD. The same money, spent wisely, would have gone twice as far at a high-priced thrift store like Goodwill, and 4-5 times farther at a garage sale. Whatever happened to the terms "serviceable" and "unserviceable", and making do one more year with something?

5) Did you see where CA has broadened the rights of domestic partners, so they can have health care, among other rights granted to married couples? Well, I honestly think that most people would help family members if they could, but once you turn 18, you can't be carried on anyone's plan, you have to get your own. Why not change the law so you can pay for someone else's healthcare for a year without them having to live with you as long as there is a blood or family relationship?

6)I think also that whatever basic skills they're teaching in the welfare classes are either not taught well or are not sinking in. Imho, I think it would be useful to teach from The Tightwad Gazette and other similar books, instead of whatever they're teaching now.

It is not that I am unsympathetic, but it is bad enough that tax dollars get wasted. If people helped their own families, we wouldn't have so many strangers to help. My parents' policy was "you CAN come home again", and as long as you helped out and were considerate (no coming in at midnight every night) you were always welcome. Too many people boot the kids at 18 for no other reason than they are 18, and then they wonder why their kids don't give a rat's derriere when they get old and in poor health. Sorry for such a long post.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 17, 2001.

Unfortunately, there is no one answer. My children and I work in a soup kitchen. We see the same faces week after week. You get to know who the really needy people are, vs the ones who are too cheap to go out and buy their own food. I only say that because you see day to day, who the individuals that sleep in the park, rummage through dumpster, and walk the street are. The oehters get into a car after the meal and drive away.

The majority of the peope that do need the meal haev a slurry of problems. It is hard to maintin a job when you have schizophrenia. Unfortunately, the majority of homeless people do have mental instability, and therefore, wouldn't be good workers in a convential place of employment. Not only that, why go to work whn you can get fed for free at least one night a week, and you don't have to pay any bills. It's amazing how many people take advantage of the hard work and generosity of those who help them.

You also have the families that just don't make enough to get by on. I was in that position when I split up with the then husband. I wasn't allowed to work, so after he left, I was forced with trying to pay for a place to stay and feed my children and I. I was forced to use the community resources for food. The food pantries operate on donations. They can only give what they get. Most people don't realize when they give donations, that another persons livelyhood could depend on it. I was very dissapointed and left without taking but a few things. I can't feed my children off several boxes of doughnuts. We had to learn to be frugal beyond our imagination, and make due with what we could get.

The government also makes it extremely hard to get beyond the need for assistance. I was unable to work a full time job without losing my benefits. If it weren't for my family, I never would have been able to get off aide. It's a cath 22. Finally, with some big sacrafices, I got a decent paying job. Ten years later, I own my own home, have a brand new car in the driveway, and we are all healthy; but I was one of the lucky ones.

-- Wendy Antes (phillips-anteswe@pendleton.usmc.mil), October 17, 2001.

I know that the WPA and the CCC have been criticised- this quote from Encarta- "The WPA succeeded in its limited goals—to shift the relief effort toward useful work and to force increased demand in the economy—but it was not able to eliminate unemployment or to stimulate full economic recovery". But, I'd sure like to see people put to work in exchange for receiving welfare/ food stamp assistance. The work program itself could be set up to provide daycare for the children of participants, and even if they provide only unskilled labor at least they are off the couch, away from the tv, making a contribution to the community and hopefully developing some skills and work ethic as they go, in addition to providing a positive example for their own kids. This doesn't address people who already work but whose income is insufficient to meet their needs. But, again, why not community gardens to help grow some of their own food? Even a single, working parent could invest a few hours a week towards maintaining a garden, especially in a community setting where support and help are available.

-- Elizabeth (ekfla@aol.com), October 17, 2001.

Elizabeth, First I would argue that what we in the US regard as hunger is a feast in many 3rd world nations. There are few places in the US where you cant get a free meal, government or community assitance if you want it. People might not even be eating 3 sq meals a day but they are eating each day. When your last real meal was is measured in days or weeks and not hours, that is hunger.

In the US the issue is very complex issue. Teaching someone a job skill is great if there are jobs that can be filled. Then on top of that, You need job that can earn enough to make just going to work cost effective. If your making minimum wage and have to spend anything on child care you not going to make any money to live on. Raising a garden or small animals is going to be out of the question non-rural areas. Granted it could be done but is going to take a VERY VERY strong willed person to oversee a project like that.

The other side, is there are people that just are not going to work. Why work when the government will pay all the bills. I do like some of the changes going on a federal and state programs that dont allow gernerational use of programs, but still helps the children and provides medical.

-- Gary (gws@redbird.net), October 17, 2001.

If the people would demand the government to stick to it's own governing documents, we would have no governmentally run snares for people to mistake for safety nets.

For instance, the constitution of Virginia says explicitly that NO public money shall be disbursed to ANY person, except in payment for services rendered to the people of the state.

The Constitution of the US says clearly that ALL the powers not listed explicitly in the Constitution as given to the Federal Government, are reserved to the separate states! Thus, the Federal Government being involved in welfare programs and social security is totally ILLEGAL.

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), October 17, 2001.

Yup, some folk are freeloaders on charity. Yup some people have enough mental problems they cant fend for themselves. Yup many are hooked on cigarettes, booze or other expensive products which are more important to them than food for their kids.

But maybe the worst thing is people have been trained by tv to expect McDonalds or at least Pillsbury or Kraft or CocaCola or other relatively expensive products. In reality a $5 bushel of wheat cooked in a slow cooker (couple dollars at most any thrift shop) should keep one adult or two kids belly(ies) full for a month. More variety if one has a hand mill or knows how to sprout the grain, but you can cook whole wheat berries without grinding. Have to scrounge for greens, etc to round out the diet. Now this isnt haute cuisine, but healthy and anybody should be able to get $5 picking up cans if nothing else. When finances allow, can add soybeans, potatoes and other inexpensive staples. Obviously we are talking people with a place to live and fuel to cook with. There will always be some mentally ill, etc that society will have to provide for through charity.

-- Hermit John (Hermit@hilltop_homestead.zzn.com), October 17, 2001.

I never object to helping out someone who CAN'T help themselves- it's the ones who WON'T help themselves that I object to. Daffadyllady is right- Washington, Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc ALL cautioned against providing hand outs to people for the very reason that they did not want to see people become dependent upon the state (government, etc). They specifically included this in the constitution- guess we moderns know better than them, eh? As evidenced by the sorry state of affairs we have now created. Hermit John is also correct- people want what everyone else has and they feel entitled to it whether they can afford it or not.

-- Elizabeth (ekfla@aol.com), October 17, 2001.

One of the HUGE questions that politicians NEVER answer, or are even asked by the "journalists" in this country is, Why is the dollar worth so much less now than before? Why is a loaf of bread in the store costing three dollars?

The answer, which is among other things fiat money (currency printed with zip zero nada to back it up) that is put into circulation, and crushing taxes and regulations that drive up the price of everything. I'm sure there are other government-caused reasons, but everybody wants to put feelgood bandaids on problems without going to the root of the problems.

-- gita (gschmitz@directcon.net), October 17, 2001.

As one who was formerly homeless for several years, I can tell you that it's not as simple as teaching poor people to grow a garden and keep livestock. Why? Many of these people would love to have a garden and chickens, but as you well know, a garden requires land, land that will still be there several months down the road. The future just isn't that predictable for the homeless. Most of them have no idea where they will be sleeping a week or a month from now. Many do not know what will be going on in two or three days- whether they will still be at the same place or not. To ask someone like that why they don't just grow a garden is to rub salt into their wound.

It's not necessarily that they're lazy either. Once you are homeless and sleeping under a bridge somewhere, it can be very hard to land a decent job. You have to look halfway respectable to get even a job in a chicken factory. The longer you're homeless the worse and more hopeless it gets. The regular people begin to seem like snobs who are always looking down on you, despising you for your situation, and they become depised in turn for the wasteful lifestyles that most of them live. Homeless people could live on what others throw away, never thinking about whether someone else could use it or not. It is not true that all homeless are on welfare. There are those who would suffer rather than ask for gov't assistance. If you don't get welfare, a lot of food banks will not help you out. They say that if you're not down and out enough to get welfare, you can't have any of their food, either. Rules at homeless shelters vary, but all of them have time limits on how long you can stay and how long it will be before you can return. They all have strict rules and curfews. Getting back into mainstream life can be very difficult, because most potential landlords want first last and deposit- that is, if you can get them to consider renting to an unwashed, scruffy, homeless person to begin with. Jobs that do not require a car to get there are equally difficult to fins, and most of them require that you list your street address. Yuo can lie, and you have to, in order to get the job, but what if they try to call the phone number you listed, when you don't have a phone? It all becomes a tangled up mess that seems hopeless. I am very blessed to live a fairly normal life again, many of the folks I once ate beside in Salvation Army's will not have the same opportuntity.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), October 17, 2001.

We live in a consumer based society. We are trained from birth to depend on others to think for us, grow our food for us, entertain us and govern for us. All we are supposed to do is get a job, watch TV and consume. To teach people to think for themselves or, even worse, fend for themselves would upset the applecart. Self-reliant people are hard to keep in their proper place.

If the government, which is mostly old rich white guys, wanted to feed the hungry it wouldn't be too difficult, just unpopular. The distribution of wealth in our society is obscene, and those who have merely want more. To see people who live in government housing and use foodstamps to eat driving shiny new cars and wearing designer clothes should make me angry at them for abusing the system. Instead it makes me sad to see people so indoctrinated to the consumer mindset that they feel the need for status items over the healthy desire to be self-reliant and proud to just provide for their families.

I do not think it is reasonable to assume that a single working parent has "a few hours a week" to commit to anything except the merest of daily survival.

If people abuse a system then it is up to those who design the system to change it. Reasonable pay for reasonable work would be one step in the right direction. If you've ever tried to feed a family on $5.25 an hour you'd probably agree...

-- gilly (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), October 17, 2001.

But what is reasonable pay, how do you calculate it, and then how do you adequately compensate the person who does more/better/faster, etc. than the person next to him? Not to mention that minimum wage jobs reflect the minimum skills needed to do those jobs. Want more money? Learn more desirable skills. Also, bear in mind that every time minimum wage goes up, that means everything else goes up, so you're still stuck in the back of the rat race if you keep the same job. Besides it often results in the cutting of jobs and/or hours because the business owner can't afford the extra expense. And, not to forget, many people choose to take lower-paying jobs because of flexible hours, ease of taking time off, etc. Look at for example the person attending the Goodwill donation stations in the shopping centers. You know what they do when not actively engaged in loading donations in the truck? They sit in their car and read, listen to the radio, do homework, whatever. For many people, that would be a nice job, even though it doesn't pay a whole lot.

As to how far minimum wage goes, well it depends on a lot of things. If you live with other people, your overall costs are lower. If you want your own space, of course it is going to cost more. There is often the same kind of waste in a poor household as in a better-off one. For example, junk food, cereal sugared to death, new everything, etc. It is more of a problem for poor households, though, so that is where training in essential skills such as how to make a dollar stretch is so important.

I am just curious, to the people who mentioned they were homeless for a while, you mean to say NONE of your relatives helped you out at all? No friends at all? I can't imagine letting one of my relatives go on welfare--we'd work out some solution, clean house/yard in exchange for room and board (so as to preserve dignity on both sides), something.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 18, 2001.

Personally, I have never begrudged a hot meal of bread & beans to anyone who is hungry! Even though I realize that some dishonest people will steal services to which they are not entitled to - just as a dishonest person may steal merchandise from a store - I am very, VERY glad that there are food stamps and soup kitchens for the hungry! As for those who lie to get food stamps they are not entitled to, they are common thieves and should be treated as such! Feeding the hungry is noble: Punishing a theif is justice! I am hoping to have enough produce next year to be contributing to a food pantry myself: I should have enough time NEXT year to plant a little extra, and it is a worthy cause. Most pantries don't take produce, but a few do. I was hoping to donate melons this year but a major hailstorm killed all but two melon vines, so that was a dissapointment!

-- (hooperterri@prodigy.net), October 18, 2001.

Rebekah, thank you for sharing your insights with us. You have a unique perspective based on your own experiences. I do not know what the circumstances were that led you to become homeless, but I am happy to see that you have been able to overcome them. I understand how the lack of land would prevent homeless people from being able to garden or raise livestock, but I still think that the opportunity exists for community gardens from which they could benefit. I have seen these gardens in urban areas where they really do benefit people, but they exist on such a small scale that they are only a drop in the bucket. And, according to the article I read yesterday, a large percentage of the hungry in New Hampshire are NOT homeless, but live in rural areas where jobs are either scarce or low-paying. It was this group that led me to my initial inquiry.

-- Elizabeth (ekfla@aol.com), October 18, 2001.

As a volunteer at a food bank, I see many people who truly seem to need help. Other times, I see people who possibly have made the wrong choices to be where they are in life. Several people spend their money on smoking, lottery tickets, alcohol, etc. Some of the recipients drive nicer autos than I do. I am just amazed at how many people actually will pull out items from their allotments and tell us that they don't want those particular items. Usually it is things like oatmeal, rice, ground turkey, etc. I would think that if someone was truly in need, they would be glad to accept everything and find some use for it. As a single parent, I have had times of concern that I would not have enough to feed my children, but I always found ways to cut back and have enough. I get the impression that there are some individuals that don't really want to get out of the situation that they are in, based on the little effort they put forth. Any thoughts ??

-- Lisa (Lis1927@aol.com), October 18, 2001.

At one time, Rebekkah, I was eating food out of dumpsters. Hubby was totally out of work most of the time. (He is a house painter- very successful now.) I was very pregnant at the time. But one thing we purposed in our hearts, was not NEVER take handouts from teh government. Number One, those handouts they give were stolen from other people, in the form of taxes. Number Two, It always comes with many strings attached. Our household finances, food cupboard, and homeschooling practices would be very scrutinised by a Social Worker who would be illiterate in matters of law.

In fact, one nosey neighbor gave an anonymous tip to the Social Services Dept that she *thought* we were eating out of dumpsters. We had a SS worker show up on our doorstep pretending to be concerned about the fact that our 6 year old wasnt in public school. When we educated her to the fact that N.C. law didnt require school attendance till the 7th year, she had no idea it was true. We told her to go ask a lawyer, please. She came back a week later, saying we were right, and she was very surprised. Then she spilled the beans that she was there because an anonymous tip had come in that we were eating out of dumpsters. She PUSHED her way into our house and demanded to know the state of our finances. Even went to the kitchen and looked in our cupboards! She especially paid close attention to our little boy, who was jollily playing with his trucks on the floor close by. She said for us to fill out that paperwork, and she would be back in a week. That week, I had the baby. When she came back, she had been notified by Nosey Neighbor that we had had a homebirth, and she was horrified. She said she didnt even know I was pregnant! (I had hidden it very well from her- big blousey dress. And I carried the baby very high. I just looked overweight.)

Hubby met her on the doorstep and asked her to kindly leave, because of the fact we had a newborn baby in the house, and that the mother was resting, also. Besides which, we definately werent breaking any laws and were not interrested in any governmental help. She became pushy and threatened to take BOTH of our kids away from us! Hubby simply read the Constitutional Amendment to her which states that the citizens of this country shall be secure in their homes and effects, unless presented with a warrant. He asked her if she had a warrant. She huffed and puffed a little and then left. We moved over the state line, as had been planned, before we heard any more.

So I know what it is to be "offered" help when you are struggling. By the way, we saw God's hand of provision through those dumpsters! When we needed fruit, we just asked our Father for fruit, and there would be fruit! When we needed milk, we just asked, and that very day, we recieved over 8 gallons of perfectly good milk, pitched because the sell-by date had arrived. We had a freezer, and froze all we couldnt immediately use. God provided wonderfully for us, even in our time of no income.

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), October 18, 2001.

Daffodyllady, here is the other side of the coin, I will tell you a story of 2 little girls whos mother was a drug addict and alcoholic. THe girls didnt get to school 1/2 time even though teachers called in the mornings to wake mom so girls could come, and mom spent all day sleeping.house had unsavory people coming and going [ drug dealing] kids found weed in cookie jar. Mom drove kids around while sipping peperment scnapes out of a water bottle.And though she got welfare money she fed kids out of dumpster to have more money for drugs.sometimes cps can help also.

-- kathy h (ckhart55@earthlink.net), October 18, 2001.

If they only gave actual food, and vouchers for housing, (in other words, no cash assistance whatsoever), there would be less money for alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes. If your state doesn't do the debit card benefit system, you can get money back from foodstamps, and that's where it often goes.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 18, 2001.

kathy, I know about the other side of the coin. I grew up alongside many foster kids my family took in. They came from all kinds of abusive and neglectful situations. One pair of little boys came with all the clothes they owned on; a pair of shorts. The mom was in prison for stealing food. Pitiful situations are out there.

The problem is that the current welfare system raises kids with the expectation that if they dont want to put forth the effort to try very hard, the government will be a parent to them, and provide for them. This country seems to be purpetuating it's legacy of broken homes, neglect, abuse and dependancy from one generation to the next. There is something wrong with the current system, and I believe it is the fact that it is GOVERNMENT in charge of taking care of those who fell in the cracks of society. It is not right to take forcibly from those who have worked hard for what they have, to give it to those who would rather sit on their butts. This is an immoral system, and it should be gotten rid of entirely. No, the government should not supervise a church-led welfare system. That would be even worse!

What should happen, is that the government should totally back out of all giving of public monies to private individuals, as it has no Constitutional right to disburse public monies to private citizens. Then, the churches and local communities will step in to fill the needs. It would restore the conscience of individuals in this nation, if they would know they were personally responsible to help their fellow man. As it is, they feel they pay taxes to take care of the unwashed and homeless masses. Thus, they feel no need to interact and care personally for them.

Also, think how much more encouraging it would be to someone who is down and out, if a fellow human being would reach out with a personal caring touch, instead of a governmental worker stepping in to take care of a statistic. Furthermore, it would discourage saps from sitting on their tails, if they would know the community which they live among, would know they were getting free food.

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), October 18, 2001.

dafadillady,I agree with just about every thing you just said, interesting idea. When we dealt with CPS I wish we hadnt had to go through them but unfortunaly that was the only way we were finaly able to wrest custody from her.

-- kathy h (ckhart55@earthlink.net), October 18, 2001.