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.

---

True, government does not care, the bureaucrats care (for the most part) only for the funds directed toward their pockets.

AggiePops said:

---

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.

---

No one is saying that there aren't those who have needs that they are either unwilling or unable to provide for themselves. It just is not the job of the federal government to provide those things for those people. There are a multitude of reasons for that, but the absolute worst possible way to address it is through the federal government.

The more money the government handles, the more programs the government provides, the greater the opportunity for that money to be laundered or stolen. We have to take it away from the thieves in DC.

I'd rather fund Meals on Wheels delivering healthy food to the elderly and home bound than sodas and chips to SNAP folks.

Either way, the less Fed involvement likely the better.

It's a great program. I've seen the Conroe kitchen and site. Wish it was something more could see and understand what they were doing and how they impact folks.

That being said, I'm 100% on board with the point that it shouldn't be government funded. However, that has been what they have come to rely upon, unfortunately. Government has undermined a number of charitable functions by bringing it under government authority (social welfare), and this organization manages to thread the needle between public and private in likely a more efficient and caring way than most.

I don't like having the rug pulled out from under it, but acknowledge it would be for the better long term.

I wish we could incentivize private sector to take over charity like that. Our church runs a food pantry and it feeds typically 1000+ people in our community every week. It hands out meal kits for Thanksgiving & Christmas as well. It runs pretty efficiently, propped up in large part by donations from church members & local businesses (like HEB, Chic fil a, etc).

Late last year government decided it wanted more control over our private food pantry. They implemented a rule that we have to get documentation and proof of salary from every person that comes asking for food. But honestly....why??? It's just another barrier to prevent us from serving the community, and I'm not sure what argument can be made to add the rule. Government worried people are scamming the church on free food? Doubtful.

Quote:

---

Late last year government decided it wanted more control over our private food pantry. They implemented a rule that we have to get documentation and proof of salary from every person that comes asking for food. But honestly....why??? It's just another barrier to prevent us from serving the community, and I'm not sure what argument can be made to add the rule. Government worried people are scamming the church on free food? Doubtful.

---

Like student loans and health insurance/health care, the government wants more under its control so people are more under its control. It's why we desperately need to shrink government.

Meals on Wheels should be a state function.

mjschiller said:

---

Meals on Wheels should be a state function.

---

It should be a volunteer/charity function.

AJ02 said:

---

I wish we could incentivize private sector to take over charity like that. Our church runs a food pantry and it feeds typically 1000+ people in our community every week. It hands out meal kits for Thanksgiving & Christmas as well. It runs pretty efficiently, propped up in large part by donations from church members & local businesses (like HEB, Chic fil a, etc).

Late last year government decided it wanted more control over our private food pantry. They implemented a rule that we have to get documentation and proof of salary from every person that comes asking for food. But honestly....why??? It's just another barrier to prevent us from serving the community, and I'm not sure what argument can be made to add the rule. Government worried people are scamming the church on free food? Doubtful.

---

How in the hell is a church giving away food any of the government's business?

I'll give you a hint. It's not.

Quote:

---

I wish we could incentivize private sector to take over charity like that. Our church runs a food pantry and it feeds typically 1000+ people in our community every week. It hands out meal kits for Thanksgiving & Christmas as well. It runs pretty efficiently, propped up in large part by donations from church members & local businesses (like HEB, Chic fil a, etc).

Late last year government decided it wanted more control over our private food pantry. They implemented a rule that we have to get documentation and proof of salary from every person that comes asking for food. But honestly....why??? It's just another barrier to prevent us from serving the community, and I'm not sure what argument can be made to add the rule. Government worried people are scamming the church on free food? Doubtful.

---

Some where your pantry is tied to one of the Federal Food Assistance Programs and/or USDA food programs. IF your folks are filling out a form/documentation supplied by the feds they gotcha. I suspect you get supplemental food from a Food Bank and that is USDA commodities by and large..

Whether or not the Feds(us) should spend on MOWs is a good debate, with sensible points from both sides.

What shouldn't be debated is that every single dollar that flows out of the federal government, from this day forward, should be audited annually from an outside party, with results/transparency available to those paying the bills, any time they want to take a peek.