Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

doubledog said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

So, if this program didn't exist, the family wouldn't have stepped in to help keep them fed and at home?

---

Sad fact, not all families care about their elders.

---

Reality check: No matter how little a family may care for their elders, it is still more than any government bureaucracy.

---

The government bureaucracy isn't feeding the family. They're just paying for it.

---

Ahh, so they won't starve, then. Good.

When people care, they make the necessary happen, and funding can be found that is NOT from an uncaring bureaucracy. Benefits come from that via process improvements and societal responsibility awareness that are casualties of a government funded system.

There is a non-zero amount of that callousness of family towards their elders that exists because they feel like it is societies job to care for them, not their own. Continuing to support that is a codependent behavior.

---

Maybe. Yet again, this is probably the last thing I care about being funded by the Federal Government.

---

Nothing that funds a persons individual family needs should come from taxpayer money. Not food, shelter, clothing, heath care, school, etc. Nothing.

They get either get it from family, charity, church, or they perish.

We shouldn't be ranking these and cutting them. Cut them all.

Until these "charity groups" stop enabling illegal immigration, we will continue to have illegal immigration. Pull enough of their funding where they have to make a choice - support the American people who need help, or help illegal immigrants. Let's challenge their priorities.

Once the illegal immigrants see that the gravy train has stopped, the invasion (illegal border crossings) will stop.

Quote:

---

They get either get it from family, charity, church, or they perish.

---

These groups are getting governmental assistance via tax exemption.

If they continue to knowingly support illegal immigration, their tax exemption should be pulled.

Who is put these meals on Wheels?



Boxed lunch gangsters.

Phatbob said:

---

First, the job of the federal government is not to "promote the general welfare". If you would read the sentence, it says that is what the Constitution was created to do. And the Constitution is a list of restrictions on the federal government, not to provide a bunch of services. In other words, the best "promotion of the general wellfare" is restricting overreaching government involvement.

---

This.

Phatbob said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

Meals on Wheels does get funded by the Federal Government, as well as State Government and local charities like St. David's in Austin, different clubs in towns, etc. The meals aren't prepared at some "local kitchen" like someone suggested (some organizations do that on their own)…in Central Texas hot meals are prepared at the HQ in Austin and then distributed daily to the various sites. Many people choose the frozen meals which are distributed once every week. The vast majority of elderly people who receive help desperately need it…not everyone has relatives they can rely on. All who receive must be "homebound" to qualify…plus when the meal gets delivered that might be the only person they get to see all week…and it also serves as a wellness check. Ladies that run sites in various rural towns get about $10 an hour…and volunteers from churches and groups deliver. Yes, funding from the Federal Government definitely helps keep this afloat…and we need to definitely keep it and help take care of elderly people that have no other alternative….its called "promote the general welfare" in the preamble. I'm really surprised at the attitude on here of cutting a program that does so many good things and helps needy us citizens!!! This isn't money going to study transgender mice or trans coloring books….this is a great program!!

---

So much to unpack here.

First, the job of the federal government is not to "promote the general welfare". If you would read the sentence, it says that is what the Constitution was created to do. And the Constitution is a list of restrictions on the federal government, not to provide a bunch of services. In other words, the best "promotion of the general wellfare" is restricting overreaching government involvement.

Second, no one is attacking Meals on Wheels. It's a great program. The federal government just has no business in being involved. The federal government is very good at maximizing budgets, wasting money, and introducing inefficiencies into processes. That is not something you want to introduce into a program that does good work.

---

First, the preamble states the goals of the Constitution….and therefore "promote the general welfare" means that the government has the responsibility to take care of its citizens…just like another goal is to establish justice. I am a firm believer that our government wastes way too much on needless programs, and I absolutely am 100% behind DOGE exposing the waste!! I have volunteered in the summers to help deliver meals for Meals on Wheels. I have personally seen the poverty level that many are struggling with, and without this assistance they would not be able to eat. Yes some on here have called for the Federal Government to stop spending money on it, and it would cease to exist without those funds. I know the director who oversees seven counties and there are zero people who are "illegal" getting any of this assistance in those areas….still shocked at the attitude of some on here to end funding for a program that actually helps people in need!! (As opposed to the waste going on in numerous other programs)

Bighunter43 said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

Meals on Wheels does get funded by the Federal Government, as well as State Government and local charities like St. David's in Austin, different clubs in towns, etc. The meals aren't prepared at some "local kitchen" like someone suggested (some organizations do that on their own)…in Central Texas hot meals are prepared at the HQ in Austin and then distributed daily to the various sites. Many people choose the frozen meals which are distributed once every week. The vast majority of elderly people who receive help desperately need it…not everyone has relatives they can rely on. All who receive must be "homebound" to qualify…plus when the meal gets delivered that might be the only person they get to see all week…and it also serves as a wellness check. Ladies that run sites in various rural towns get about $10 an hour…and volunteers from churches and groups deliver. Yes, funding from the Federal Government definitely helps keep this afloat…and we need to definitely keep it and help take care of elderly people that have no other alternative….its called "promote the general welfare" in the preamble. I'm really surprised at the attitude on here of cutting a program that does so many good things and helps needy us citizens!!! This isn't money going to study transgender mice or trans coloring books….this is a great program!!

---

So much to unpack here.

First, the job of the federal government is not to "promote the general welfare". If you would read the sentence, it says that is what the Constitution was created to do. And the Constitution is a list of restrictions on the federal government, not to provide a bunch of services. In other words, the best "promotion of the general wellfare" is restricting overreaching government involvement.

Second, no one is attacking Meals on Wheels. It's a great program. The federal government just has no business in being involved. The federal government is very good at maximizing budgets, wasting money, and introducing inefficiencies into processes. That is not something you want to introduce into a program that does good work.

---

First, the preamble states the goals of the Constitution….and therefore "promote the general welfare" means that the government has the responsibility to take care of its citizens…just like another goal is to establish justice. I am a firm believer that our government wastes way too much on needless programs, and I absolutely am 100% behind DOGE exposing the waste!! I have volunteered in the summers to help deliver meals for Meals on Wheels. I have personally seen the poverty level that many are struggling with, and without this assistance they would not be able to eat. Yes some on here have called for the Federal Government to stop spending money on it, and it would cease to exist without those funds. I know the director who oversees seven counties and there are zero people who are "illegal" getting any of this assistance in those areas….still shocked at the attitude of some on here to end funding for a program that actually helps people in need!! (As opposed to the waste going on in numerous other programs)

---

If the founders who wrote that intended the govt to provide for individual family needs, why didnt those programs begin then?

Not part of the Feds constitutional authority.

Shut it down.

Quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

It's not vague, it's simple sentence structure. It is one of the stated reasons why they ordained and established the Constitution. It is describing what the document does, and it does not say that those are the stated goals of the government of which the document states what it is allowed to do.

And again, no one is attacking the program. This is a common mistake that the rank and file of the left make, that if we are against Federal funding of something, that we are against the goals of what they are funding. It's like saying if you are against the mob providing "protection" in a neighborhood, then you must be for the residents being terrorized for not paying for it. A way of life, a goal, a service can be provided WITHOUT it being done in a way that is unhelpful, wasteful, or counterproductive.

I heard a story on the radio this morning about a local town. With a population of around 250,000, they were unsure of their $92 million annual federal subsidy.

Sq 17 said:

---

Maroon Elephant said:

---

I am reading everywhere that Trump has essentially crippled this program by cutting funding somehow. What is the story here?

---

Not much of a story just one of the random things Govt does usually with the help of a local non-profit in small towns it's usually run by the church ladies at one of their fellowship halls with a full industrial kitchen and those gals ain't getting rich doing it.

My wife's grandparents were on it the last ten years they were alive. Only one of their children still lived in town and She worked in Waco( about 30 minutes away) . Lilly enjoyed having two meals delivered for lunch she was in her late 80's and her husband was in his 90's. My mother in law would check in on them and make them dinner after work. Meals on Wheels helped them stay in their home and the people bringing the meals were locals and acquaintances

Even if people are willing to donate their time the food and the gasoline to make it happen is probably not in a small town church's budget.

---

My husband's dad was a Knight of Columbus and he delivered meals on wheels until he died at age 93. He was still living in his house and cooking for himself. I will say after he had a heart attack he went down fast. His heart attack was in September 2019 and he died in November 2019

torrid said:

---

I heard a story on the radio this morning about a local town. With a population of around 250,000, they were unsure of their $92 million annual federal subsidy.

---

I believe the entire federal funding of MoW is $92 million.

Bighunter43 said:

---

First, the preamble states the goals of the Constitution….and therefore "promote the general welfare" means that the government has the responsibility to take care of its citizens…just like another goal is to establish justice.

---

You would be wrong. But it's ok to be wrong, as long as you learn from it.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

torrid said:

---

I heard a story on the radio this morning about a local town. With a population of around 250,000, they were unsure of their $92 million annual federal subsidy.

---

I believe the entire federal funding of MoW is $92 million.

---

I guarantee you that the actual cost of that $92 million grant is far more than $92 million. That is another deception of federal funding. That number is what the government has allowed out of what it consumed.

Think of it like the laws of physics, because it does mirror it pretty closely. Money is a fiat for matter and energy (aka value). Though you can mint money, you cannot just materialize value out of nothing, because you cannot materialize matter or energy out of nothing..

You cannot take electricity, send it to another state, have it do the work of powering its own method of storage and dispersion, and have it be sent back without massive loss of energy. The same principle applies to government funding.

You would be able to have a much better funded program if it had nothing to do with federal funding because it is a flawed ideological system of dispersing value.

AJ02 said:

---

Was going to be my question. Why is this a federal function?

---

The only possible answer would be that it guarantees at least a minimum amount of aid to those that need it as not all states are as able or as interested in funding such things on their own. States can look at services to save and become more efficient too but some states don't have the productivity and/or resources to self fund everything they need, much less everything they might want.

AggiePops said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

Was going to be my question. Why is this a federal function?

---

The only possible answer would be that it guarantees at least a minimum amount of aid to those that need it as not all states are as able or as interested in funding such things on their own. States can look at services to save and become more efficient too but some states don't have the productivity and/or resources to self fund everything they need, much less everything they might want.

---

That's part of the problem. If you're offering to pay, why should I go reaching for my wallet.

AggiePops said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

Was going to be my question. Why is this a federal function?

---

The only possible answer would be that it guarantees at least a minimum amount of aid to those that need it as not all states are as able or as interested in funding such things on their own. States can look at services to save and become more efficient too but some states don't have the productivity and/or resources to self fund everything they need, much less everything they might want.

---

Not even remotely within the purview of the feds. So....

AggiePops said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

Was going to be my question. Why is this a federal function?

---

The only possible answer would be that it guarantees at least a minimum amount of aid to those that need it as not all states are as able or as interested in funding such things on their own. States can look at services to save and become more efficient too but some states don't have the productivity and/or resources to self fund everything they need, much less everything they might want.

---

We are going to have fundamental disagreement on this. To the left, this phrase "what they need" is just a euphemism for programs that liberals want. That is entirely independent of actual needs. Just because you call it a "need" doesn't make it so, just like when your kids say they "need" something, that rarely actually means they really need it.

AggiePops said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

Was going to be my question. Why is this a federal function?

---

The only possible answer would be that it guarantees at least a minimum amount of aid to those that need it as not all states are as able or as interested in funding such things on their own. States can look at services to save and become more efficient too but some states don't have the productivity and/or resources to self fund everything they need, much less everything they might want.

---

Then if Texas doesn't want to they can instead buy the person a bus ticket and pay them to move to another state.

BigRobSA said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

First, the preamble states the goals of the Constitution….and therefore "promote the general welfare" means that the government has the responsibility to take care of its citizens…just like another goal is to establish justice.

---

You would be wrong. But it's ok to be wrong, as long as you learn from it.

---

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4085046

We know it's up for interpretation….but the courts have generally sided (Constitutionally) that the Federal Government can use taxes (Article 1) to support programs which would provide and promote the general welfare of it's citizens!

Yes, we are well aware the courts have intentionally done plenty of mental gymnastics to go around the wording of the Constitution to make it say the opposite of what it plainly says in order to implement various socialistic systems.

Phatbob said:

---

Yes, we are well aware the courts have intentionally done plenty of mental gymnastics to go around the wording of the Constitution to make it say the opposite of what it plainly says in order to implement various socialistic systems.

---

NFA of 1934 comes to mind.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

On the list of things that I think should be canceled, government funding of Meals on Wheels is at the very, very bottom.

---

As I tried to say I think we can generally agree on this. But this isn't a surgical operation, the size and scope of the federal budget make that impossible. We're going to see good tossed out with bad. Blame 60 years of unfettered growth in the scope of government not the first guy in 40 years to try and reign it all in.

---

there's a great scene in Knives Out where a wealthy Christopher Plummer is basically cutting off his entitled family that's been sucking off his money for decades. some were mild contributors, some were trying to double dip, etc. so built their own business and it didn't affect them.

not to spoil, it but one of them kills him over it.


if you're getting help and/or a free ride and it ends and then you get angry about it, it's obvious that you've lost a level of gratitude.

________

my wife and i haven't had an ounce of help for our 20 years of marriage. some small college contributions for our kids and Christmas money, etc. Every time one of our friends bring up their parents helping them buy their first house or paying a bit for their kids' college once their enrolled, my wife and I get a giant WTF face. one of them mentioned that their parents weren't going to be able to pay for a semester of college for their kids and it was a huge setback and really put a rift between them and their parents. I get that you have to make an adjustment, but to be angry because somebody cuts off a spigot just shows you haven't been taught to fish.

Phatbob said:

---

Yes, we are well aware the courts have intentionally done plenty of mental gymnastics to go around the wording of the Constitution to make it say the opposite of what it plainly says in order to implement various socialistic systems.

---

Yep

Again, according to powers granted, not within the purview of the feds. Not really "up for interpretation" when it explicitly lays out their granted powers.

Let me preface this post by saying I'm as big of a far right conservative as they come. I am totally opposed to Federal programs that waste taxpayer money. The DOGE eye opening waste is infuriating. However, based on personal experience of volunteering, I ve seen the need for Meals on Wheels and the services they provide for our nation's elderly homebound. Without it, many would simply not be able to survive, or have to be placed in a nursing home setting where Medicaid is going to pick up a much bigger tab of your tax dollars than providing a few cheap meals per week. The money comes from the Senior Nutrition Act and serves a basic need. Many have money, but are handicapped and can't drive or stand to cook and simply live alone. This isn't giving a check to a homeless person on 6th street who's going to blow it on drugs, alcohol, etc….this truly helps those in need. (Now, my town also operates a food bank with lines of cars parked around the street each week to pick of "free" food. Many of them drive nicer vehicles than my own, and take advantage of that system….that bothers me)…..but I will always support a great program like Meals on Wheels, where 35% of its budget comes from the Federal Government. And if it bothers so many that Federal money helps out in a good program like this, let me know, and I'll give you a form where you can donate to help out, like I do.

Then spend your money for it. Not my money.

If they die, they die.

BigRobSA said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

First, the preamble states the goals of the Constitution….and therefore "promote the general welfare" means that the government has the responsibility to take care of its citizens…just like another goal is to establish justice.

---

You would be wrong. But it's ok to be wrong, as long as you learn from it.

---

Correct, anyone who thinks the preamble is "law" doesn't understand reading comprehension and most likely thinks you have to be a member if a militia to own a gun.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Added: The abused "General Welfare" clause is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

While you might describe yourself as a "far right conservative," advocating for federal government roles that aren't within the enumerated powers is evidence to the contrary. You could use some Sowell.

So they only eat three meals per week?? Maybe they should be in care.

Meals on Wheels is a great program, and it's also a great example of something the federal government does not need to be involved in. Local and state can handle this according to how much they prioritize it.

Very silly to insist it's the job of the federal government. It's also instructive as to how many programs have been federalized, each with their own constituency, who insist "yes, reduce the size of the federal government... just not my program."

Phatbob said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

Was going to be my question. Why is this a federal function?

---

The only possible answer would be that it guarantees at least a minimum amount of aid to those that need it as not all states are as able or as interested in funding such things on their own. States can look at services to save and become more efficient too but some states don't have the productivity and/or resources to self fund everything they need, much less everything they might want.

---

We are going to have fundamental disagreement on this. To the left, this phrase "what they need" is just a euphemism for programs that liberals want. That is entirely independent of actual needs. Just because you call it a "need" doesn't make it so, just like when your kids say they "need" something, that rarely actually means they really need it.

---

There are actual needs which is why I differentiated from 'things they might want'. I think most people would consider having access to enough food not to starve a need. Access to clean, potable water. Hopefully a roof over your head. Clothes to wear? Can't they just work for it? Sure, absolutely, But many people work jobs that don't pay enough to reliably provide those basic needs, especially when kids are included. If you want to say, get better jobs, fine. Except better paying jobs aren't always available to them. If you still want to complain, go to those areas with a new business that pays well and hire them. And some people are not physically or mentally capable of working full time if at all. Helping those people who are in untenable living conditions through no fault of their own isn't a liberal issue. It's simple human decency.

Interesting. Having kids isn't a choice? Having kids when you can't even afford to feed yourself isn't a choice? Why are the physically unable? I understand there are conditions but that's a small minority of people. If we only helped those who are physically or mentally incapable of providing for themselves that' might look different. That's not happening. Get the feds out and let states and local handle it.

Bighunter43 said:

---

Let me preface this post by saying I'm as big of a far right conservative as they come. I am totally opposed to Federal programs that waste taxpayer money. The DOGE eye opening waste is infuriating. However, based on personal experience of volunteering, I ve seen the need for Meals on Wheels and the services they provide for our nation's elderly homebound. Without it, many would simply not be able to survive, or have to be placed in a nursing home setting where Medicaid is going to pick up a much bigger tab of your tax dollars than providing a few cheap meals per week. The money comes from the Senior Nutrition Act and serves a basic need. Many have money, but are handicapped and can't drive or stand to cook and simply live alone. This isn't giving a check to a homeless person on 6th street who's going to blow it on drugs, alcohol, etc….this truly helps those in need. (Now, my town also operates a food bank with lines of cars parked around the street each week to pick of "free" food. Many of them drive nicer vehicles than my own, and take advantage of that system….that bothers me)…..but I will always support a great program like Meals on Wheels, where 35% of its budget comes from the Federal Government. And if it bothers so many that Federal money helps out in a good program like this, let me know, and I'll give you a form where you can donate to help out, like I do.

---

Get govt out of the way, "far right wing conservative", not more in the way. Not to mention, speaking only of the feds, there is no power granted to do this. It's specifically up to states and local govt.