‘A perfect storm’: US facing hunger crisis as demand for food banks soars no

You still didn't give an example, fictional or actual, of a typical poor person. Give one and I'll prove how their status is due to their own choices - and don't give me the poor guy who was the top of his class in his senior year at university until a car accident cost him both legs, both hands, and his eyes were poked out and now he is poor. Give me any typical poor person scenario, real or fictional, and I'll explain how it is their choice to be poor.

 

No, I'm not putting them down and it's not that they don't make enough to be be worth a real living wage, it's that they don't KNOW enough to be worth a real living wage. Knowledge is free. Learn a skill. You did. I did. Almost every poor person I know of can do what I have done and be making close to the money I make. There are dozens of other routes to success that they can take as well. And not all success comes from money so they choose the success they want to achieve. If a hundred dollar car with ten-thousand dollar wheels is success to them then that's fine. They're successful. They don't need anything from me because they've achieved the success they were willing to work for.

I've said it before; mostly, people get what they want out of life. They may not get what they daydream of or whine that they don't have, but they get what they want. If they truly wanted more they would work to get more. But, instead, for most people, what they want is subsistence and something to whine about and someone to listen to them whine.

 

The consumer enables everything. If we didn't buy products manufactured in China, our companies wouldn't move manufacturing to China. It is pretty simple.

It is real easy to place blame on "those evil corporations" or "that evil society" or "those evil right wingers" or "that evil president." But it is a little more difficult to understand that we, the American consumer, are to blame. We have become a country of "blaming someone else for our shortcomings." And leftists constantly promote the victim ideology. Instead, they should promote "quit feeling sorry for yourself, get off your ass, and go make yourself a nice life."

It is just too easy to completely ignore the fact that we are responsible for ourselves. They blame every single problem on the above groups and they consider themselves a victim. Then they give up trying. it is a real shame, because the opportunities are there for them if they would just put in the effort. It is a real shame that the leftists promote this.

 

Is your grandson doing anything to improve his situation? Or is he planning on working at that $10 an hour job for the rest of his life?

And seriously, are you saying that no poor people smoke dope, drink booze, get tats, or spend money on stupid things?

 

And pretending that people can't get ahead because they are victims of the evil corporations is inherently flawed.

 

Say you had a teenage son and you decided to give him an allowance. And all he did with that allowance was buy dope, cigarettes, and booze. And when he blew it all on the first day, and came back to you asking for more because he spent all his money, would you just hand him more cash? Wouldn't you attempt to rein in his poor behavior?

So, when the taxpayer doles out money to the "poor," shouldn't we have a say in how it is spent? Of course we should.

 

I don't know about you folks...but when I go shopping (only twice since this thing started) I make a point of spending $50 on stuff to drop off at the local food bank. Surprisingly they need toiletries the most so I get "lady products", tooth paste, tooth brushes, before I buy staples

 

That is one of the most ignorant posts I've read in my entire life. Do you live in a cave?

 

Let's say you're right as you no doubt are in some cases. So, you'll solve the hungry kid problem by cutting off the family? What are you going to say to a six-year-old? "You're mama has been bad and that's why you have to go hungry?"

Over to you...

 

Yes, and so what? We have minimum wage laws.

Set the minimum wage higher. Go with a negative income tax.

Have you started a business? I doubt it.

Your solution for those too young, too old, or too sick to work is what? Starve?

Why not?

What a screwy idea. Sheesh.

 

You're not prepared to see them paid a living wage, so where is the "eat" part?

Feed with what? Right now, unemployment is heading to Depression levels. Where are they going to get a job?

Forcing a child to go hungry is more than a little disgusting.

 

Why should we trade $20/hour service sector jobs for $2/hour manufacturing jobs?

There are many things largely made outside the country that say "Made in the U.S.A." when they only get a final few screws turned here. It's not a matter of "evil" anything.

An awful lot of Democrats have made their own way given that unemployment has been around five percent and half of Americans lean left.

If all the unemployed were Democrats, 90% of them would have jobs.

How does this make sense when the vast majority of Democrats have jobs?

 

Not by letting children go hungry.

You have a say through your elected representatives.

 

So you can't defend poverty any more than can FreshAir. Got it. There are zero poor, not counting those rare handicap cases, in America who are not poor because of their own, often very legitimate, choices. None. If you disagree, then give one example of where I am wrong.

 

I'm not sure I agree rich people feel they can ignore the plight of average folks in the COVID-19 crisis. We have a $2t bailout package and it's only the beginning. Frankly, it isn't enough, but it's a start.

I don't think it will get to this.

Who is going to kill whom and to what end?

If we don't do what we're doing with stay-at-home orders, we will lose millions to the virus. Letting that happen would profoundly change society.

 

I'm completely willing to see people earn a living wage - when they do work that is worth a living wage.

Do you have children? Do you give them an allowance based on work they do? Is that allowance a living wage? Are there no jobs that are intended as entry-level jobs for high-school children or should every high-school kid that gets a job get paid enough for his own apartment, utilities, car or transportation, groceries,etc.?

A month ago, unemployment was as low as it's been in beyond 50 years and they were already poor. And, if any political party plays a hand in their poverty, it's the Democrats.

Please explain just how many times I have to pay for feeding the children of the lazy, worthless, welfare class? I pay for their SNAP, I pay for their school lunches, I pay for their after-school and weekend meals provided by the school, and now you want me to pay for them again?

Parents who spend money on drugs, alcohol, overly-priced car wheels, hundred-plus dollar sneakers, gold jewelry (even if just plated), cell phones, big-screen TVs, cable television, etc., before they feed their children - even selling off the value of their taxpayer provided SNAP cards rather than feeding their children, will not feed their children no matter how much money taxpayers provide. But if they go to jail for not feeding their children, with fast-growing sentences for repeat offenses, will teach them to feed their children and teach others considering not feeding their children that there are consequences.

Hungry children was never consequence enough for those people. My plan (not really mine; the plan of real conservatives) is the only plan that shows compassion for the children. Welfare is not compassionate; it's enslaving - intentionally so.

 

Do you understand that the consumer controls practically everything having to do with business? Do you realize that Bill Gates would not be rich except for the fact that consumers agreed that he should be a billionaire? When Walmart started importing stuff from China, did not the consumer applaud that behavior and affirm that it was what we wanted? The consumer is just as responsible for moving jobs overseas as the companies that did it.

So why did we trade $20/hour domestic jobs for $2/hour foreign jobs? Because the consumer supported it, and practically demanded it, as evidenced by their purchases.

We aren't talking about the average Democrat, we are talking about poor people who have no emergency fund because they frivolously waste their money for short term "happiness" instead of focusing on long term success.

 

Not by continuing to give neglectful parents tens of thousands of dollars a year, only to see those parents spend their money on frivolous items instead of taking care of their kids. Instead of giving those parents untold thousands of dollars, give them a basic allowance of food. And then if those parents don't take care of the kids, hit them with child abuse charges.

So let's say you had a "poor" son who had a kid. And you give money to your son to buy food for the kid. But your son spends the money on irresponsible things and doesn't feed the kid. Are you going to continue to dump money into your son, hoping the kid gets fed, or will you feed the kid directly yourself? Maybe even file for custody?

Seriously, people who cannot take care of themselves and rely on the taxpayer are just like children. And children need guidance, both for their life decisions and financial decisions. To simply dump taxpayer money down the endless well of irresponsible adults is just crazy. Irresponsible people should not have control over taxpayer money.

You just cannot make irresponsible people become responsible by continuing to pour money down the drain. All that does is enable them to be even more irresponsible. The only way they will become responsible is when we make them so damn uncomfortable that they decide it is easier to become self responsible.

Theoretically, we all do. Don't know that this changes anything.

 

Look around your town. You'll see the poor side of town where the guy living on wages for saying, "Would you like fries with that," lives. See the house he lives in because he makes $7.50 an hour. If he's paying 35% of his wages for rent, he's paying about $425 a month for that shack house. Now, raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour. Then let's just assume that automating his job away costs $75 an hour so that you didn't just get him fired because you raised the minimum wage. On day one, he's got a lot of money and he rents a fancy house. Then, in a couple months after the cost of a burger went up by 400%, so the lettuce suppliers costs went up so now his produce goes up 400%, and the food costs for the refinery workers goes up so they demand higher wages and then gasoline goes up 400%. Keep in mind there are a million commodities and products not listed in the example but all of those products went up because minimum wage went up 400%.

So, now his landlord's living costs went up 400% so the new house the burger flipper rented went up 400% in rent and he moves back to the original shack house he lived in - the burger-flipper house - but now he's paying $1300 a month (35% of his new, higher, income).

The point is, the dollars don't matter. You can't pass any government program that puts a burger flipper in Bill Gates' mansion. The burger flipper will always live in that shack house on the poor side of town. That house is what burger flipping pays. The numbers are irrelevant. You can change the numbers but you won't change the lifestyle of the burger flipper.

Actually, I have had my own business. I had an electronics business that I started with nothing and turned it into a significant regional government contracting business where I ran the communications shops on 3 Navy bases in Southern California. I started with me, and ended up with many employees working on those bases and in my commercial operations.

I've mentioned I am a high-school dropout but I taught myself electronics. When I went in the Navy, they gave me (and all who were taking the basic electronics course) a version of the final test going into the course. I got a 94% because I had taught myself electronics. They had never had someone score that high and weren't sure what to do but, in the end, sent me through the course anyway. In the end I got a 98% (the instructor was wrong; I was right). In any case, I turned my own hard work into huge success in the Navy. I was the youngest Chief Petty Officer in the Navy for a two-year period before the next younger replaced me - but he was a year old when he made Chief than I was. I wasn't the youngest ever; the world wars saw some very young Chief Petty Officers but the point is I was very successful because of my own choices and my own effort to be successful.

After some years, having been underbid on all my Navy contracts in one year, I took my money and moved to Oklahoma. More success on my part, from my own choices and my own hard work. I next went into IT since I had taught myself computers and programming just as I had previously taught myself electronics. I was quickly a senior developer/team lead and then software application architect, and then supervisor of a small team and now supervisor of a large group of teams across the globe - more success because of my own choices and hard work.

Interesting thing where I work now, there are a few developers who worked for me as far back as when I was just the team lead who have now completely surpassed me and, in two cases, I worked for them after they worked for me. Both of those have gone beyond even that now. Why is that? Once again, choices. They made choices to climb to the top. I'm a hard worker but those two work so friggin' hard it's unbelievable. I'm not going to work that hard so I am pretty much as high as I'll go - not because I couldn't but because I choose not to. See - good or bad, limits or success, it's all about choices and how hard you're willing to work.

So some say it takes luck but I seem to have had luck over and over again. Or, as I said before, you make your luck by your hard work.

My solution is to demand that those who created the young pay to feed them and get held accountable if they do not. Families, churches, neighbors, friends, communities, even the states, can take care of the sick.

The old who didn't plan or save should suffer the consequences of their choices unless their families, churches, neighbors, friends, communities, and even states, take care of them. Primary in that, of course, are the families. Children should take care of their elderly parents. If there are no children then nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters.

There could even be local or state laws requiring family, where it exists, to care for the elderly. The Federal Government has no authority or role in it.

No; the screwy idea is to pay people more than the prevailing or market wage for their labor. Minimum skill: minimum wage. Minimum effort in job preparation: minimum wage.

Funny thing about Democrats and the left, and a lot of Republicans who sometimes pretend to be conservative, is that the want open borders, flooding the market, and keeping wages low. As Bernie says, if we don't let the foreign labor in, who will pick our cotton... I mean lettuce.

When I was in high school, my stepfather made $35 a day picking lettuce in the San Joaquin Valley. Lettuce was one of the best paying crops. Celery was the only thing that paid higher. That's $226 in today's dollars. I, on the other hand, picked tomatoes or topped onions in the summer. I could make about 6 dollars a day topping onions and as much as 10 dollars a day picking tomatoes so about minimum wage. You had to pretty much be known to the jefes to get on the bus for lettuce or celery. Those were the skilled, experienced workers. They had more skill, offered more value, and made more money. Those highly skilled workers made a living wage - even better. The rest of us made minimum wage. You could live on 10 dollars a day if you were very frugal. Even with Don making $35 a day,. we had one black and white TV, 13 inch, for the entire family in 1971.

Now, imagine if we stopped importing low-skill labor. Imagine what the wages then, and now, would be without illegal or even legal immigrants picking vegetables? They say those are jobs Americans won't do but we sure as hell did them from 1969 to 1972 when I was in high school and picked vegetables weekends and summer or days I skipped school. I was hungry; I worked. I wanted a date; I worked. I wanted a pair of jeans or a pair of shoes; I worked.

Of course I see on TV now that tomatoes are picked by machine. Soon, if not already, so will lettuce and celery be. People who want a working wage better get smart and learn something more valuable than topping onions; that may be all that's left. Actually, if no one has yet invented a machine for that, I could have one ready to work by Monday.

Hungry Americans will most certainly pick vegetables, build houses, roads, bridges, etc. They don't do it because the left doesn't want independent voters, they want dependent voters so Americans on welfare and immigrants dependent on open borders to get their under-the-table, often not even minimum wage, jobs.

 

Family, community, church, local government, even state government can care for the child while mother is in prison for child neglect. Don't reward irresponsible behavior. It only encourages more.

 

I taught high school students and adults for three decades. I don't think you understand how many people have limited ability.

Our daughter is past the allowance stage--she's a vice president of a major bank.

High school students get pushed aside in bad times.

You heard that somewhere from people who don't know.

This has been going on for forty years...



The fundamental relationship between management and labor changed around 1980 and has been maintained over Democratic and Republican eras. Worker's wages have stagnated.

I asked you how you would fix this problem and you seem to have settled on starving them out, even their children.

This is a six-year-old. You would hurt this child?

A lot less of this goes on than you think, or would like to think. There is plenty of research that shows giving poor people more money improves their lives. They don't blow it all on junk.

Sort of like a debtor's prison. Neat.

You would see the little girl above go hungry? Really?

 

You should throw that guilt trip on the parents before you throw it on the taxpayer.

 

How to create gang members and criminals! Good stuff.

 

I merely asked you a question. It's obvious you would hurt the little girl.

 

That is totally absurd and hypocritical. Typical of a leftist. First off, that girl isn't hungry. Second, it is not me hurting her; if she isn't getting three meals a day, that's her parents hurting her. My solution is to hold the parents accountable so they quit hurting her. Your solution is to give the parents more money for more irresponsible behavior so they can hurt the child even more. Children raised by irresponsible parents learn irresponsibility.

No doubt you'll respond about hurting the child because parents are in jail so let's nip that in the bud. I was in foster care for a part of my childhood. While my parents never really behaved responsibly, in foster care I saw multiple good homes and what the possibilities were. Knowing that life didn't have to be welfare, Colt-45 Malt Liquor for breakfast and all day long, and beating children, helped me realize that there was something else to work for and gave me reason to change my own life. If that six-year-old girl gets nothing more than that, she's ahead of the game compared to staying in a home with irresponsible parents.

Even better, though, is the parents realizing they must take responsibility and getting out of prison, coming home, and being better parents for the rest of the child's young age. Children are quite resilient when loved and parents who learn responsibility have great opportunities to undo the damage they had done to their children in the past.

No, it is you, the left, and the Democrats who are hurting six-year-old girls like the one you showed. Welfare hurts her. Irresponsible parents hurt her. Democrats hurt her. What a hypocrite.