Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (19527)	3/31/1998 2:34:00 AM
From: Intrepid1	Respond to of 108807

One guy, actually had the gall to pull up in a brand new car, sticker and all, and fill his car up with free food Michael, that is indeed shocking! It's people like taht who give poverty a bad name. purething

To: greenspirit who wrote (19527)	3/31/1998 1:01:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Michael, in San Franciso all food banks are need based. Most of the people standing in line for food are wearing obvious rags, and some of them don't even have proper shoes in the winter. You have to be very, very poor to qualify for any food at all here. One of the trends that has been observed recently here is that as housing becomes so expensive for the middle class that it is harder to survive, there are fewer donations to food banks, as well. When I lived on Vashon Island, there was a food bank there which was not need based. I think it was one of the really neat things about Washington state, as opposed to San Francisco. There are a lot of people who suddenly have hard times, unexpected bills, medical expenses, are laid off suddenly, or a lot of other circumstances where they qualify for no government aid at all, and have not yet fallen below the poverty line, but suddenly cannot put food on the table. They can appear in late model cars, and looking well dressed and well groomed, but the process of standing in line for food is humiliating, and they are not there to rip off the system. As I recall, a national organization of churches went to president Clinton recently and informed him that even though they were all trying, there were so many needy people in the United States that the churches could not be expected to deal with all the demands of people who have lost their welfare, etc. as the safety net gets more big holes in it. In such a rich country as this, if we do not maintain some kind of minimal support to the poor, the social cost will be much greater later. I don't understand why conservatives do not understand this. It is simply cost effective. And I would note that you didn't answer my question--how can a Christian justify not feeding hungry children? They are innocent, and cannot help themselves, regardless of what you think about their parents. Like Duncan, you are using one example of someone with a new car who came and filled up his car with food (which I suspect was more like two bags of food). You do not know whether the car was his, you don't know if he just lost his job yesterday, or if he had to suddenly send an ill relative several hundred dollars in a real emergency. You don't really know any of his real circumstances, and yet you have not only judged him, but apparently used him as an example of why poor children should be allowed to go to school hungry.