"While the need for emergency food continues to grow, national food donations have decreased. The trend of national food companies’ improved efficiency levels leading to less and less surplus product for the emergency food network is not surprising overall, but the amount of decline was. The 35% decline in donations so far this year - one million pounds of food - is the largest falloff to date; at a time when Michigan’s economy is at its worst, the amount has had a major impact on the emergency food system.
Additionally, the demand on farmers to replace food and feed crops with crops for ethanol manufacturing has impacted surplus food supplies and food costs dramatically.
Michigan’s budget crisis has added another layer to the problem. A grant that funds the Michigan Agricultural Surplus System, providing fresh food as well as money to transport it, ran out in August 2007 and has not yet been renewed due to the state’s ongoing budget issues.
In September, United Way’s 2-1-1 emergency call center received the highest volume of calls for service since the program launched in December 2005, and food assistance was the No.1 request in Wayne and Oakland counties and the second-highest request in Macomb. The changes in Wayne and Oakland are attributed to residents using their “food money” to offset other monthly expenses."
Michigan is probably the worst but its horrible everywhere.
Its obviously then a time to raise taxes on everyone (Health care, Cap-and-Tax, VAT). That’ll bring the country around!!
Bet the idiots who voted for Obama never realized they were voting to starve!!!
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
borrek wrote:
But but I thought we could all rely on charity to do what the government can’t?!
If we weren’t paying 50%+ of our incomes to failed gov’t programs, we could all afford to be more charitable.
And anyways, legislating morality is supposed to be bad.
Really? So we shouldn’t legislate against murder or rape or theft?[/quote]
Well, see, in those instances someone has committed aggression against another. So, that kind of legislation is supposed to be good. But, in the domain of private morality (non-aggression), legislating morality is supposed to bad. Baaaaaad.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
borrek wrote:
But but I thought we could all rely on charity to do what the government can’t?!
If we weren’t paying 50%+ of our incomes to failed gov’t programs, we could all afford to be more charitable.
And anyways, legislating morality is supposed to be bad.
Really? So we shouldn’t legislate against murder or rape or theft?[/quote]
The law is not to prevent crimes but rather to tell the society how it is supposed to handle these acts. The law is only required because there must be a precise way to handle criminals if there is to be justice.
I don’t think you need a law to tell you these things are immoral.
The law only comes about, not because of morality, but because we recognize that certain individuals behave immorally and we want to deal with them justly and remove them from our society; however, the law does not prevent them from behaving immorally.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
borrek wrote:
But but I thought we could all rely on charity to do what the government can’t?!
If we weren’t paying 50%+ of our incomes to failed gov’t programs, we could all afford to be more charitable.
And anyways, legislating morality is supposed to be bad.
Really? So we shouldn’t legislate against murder or rape or theft?
The law is not to prevent crimes but rather to tell the society how it is supposed to handle these acts. The law is only required because there must be a precise way to handle criminals if there is to be justice.
I don’t think you need a law to tell you these things are immoral.
The law only comes about, not because of morality, but because we recognize that certain individuals behave immorally and we want to deal with them justly and remove them from our society; however, the law does not prevent them from behaving immorally.[/quote]
Semantics. Of course we cannot force someone to behave morally. I just laugh every time someone says “we can’t legislate morality”. Nearly all of our laws are based on morality.
Given that people in the US are still hungry, and people here are saying that they already give enough taxes, then is straightforward to see that you prefer keeping more of your money than feeding neighbors.
That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.
That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.[/quote]
I doubt a significant share of the 1/3 to 1/2 of our paycheck–taken by threat of violence–is actually being spent on the end product these “charity” programs are supposed to deliver.
[quote]borrek wrote:
Given that people in the US are still hungry, and people here are saying that they already give enough taxes, then is straightforward to see that you prefer keeping more of your money than feeding neighbors.
That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.[/quote]
No but I do not think the trillions of dollars American’s get taxed are all going to feeding people.
No I would not give 1/2 of my pay check because I only with draw income when I need something. I however do donate more money to charity than I make even before taxes.
That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.
I doubt a significant share of the 1/3 to 1/2 of our paycheck–taken by threat of violence–is actually being spent on the end product these “charity” programs are supposed to deliver.[/quote]
I am under no misconceptions that most of our tax money goes to the end product. For example, I had to pay $130 per slab to have my city sidewalks repaired by a private contractor, however had I not chosen to do so, the city would have done it for me and charged $250 per slab plus a $75 administration fee. Obviously this metaphor blows up to even larger margins when we’re talking highways. Even private charities will carry inefficiencies though, and these inefficiencies will multiply as they grow. I personally believe that the money “gained” by getting rid of a wasteful government will be more than negatively offset by people who just don’t give a shit about anyone else.
If we cut public education from taxes, all we have to do is look at the cost of private universities to see where things will head. Who will pay the charity for the education of entire neighborhoods of poor families?
On a side note, I don’t think that taxes are taken under threat of violence any more than it is a threat of violence that keeps me from murdering people. Consequences are not the same as threats.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No but I do not think the trillions of dollars American’s get taxed are all going to feeding people.
No I would not give 1/2 of my pay check because I only with draw income when I need something. I however do donate more money to charity than I make even before taxes.[/quote]
So you’re saying you only ask your employer to pay you when you need to buy something, and the rest of the time you work for free?
[quote]borrek wrote:
If we cut public education from taxes, all we have to do is look at the cost of private universities to see where things will head. Who will pay the charity for the education of entire neighborhoods of poor families?
[/quote]
You are really reaching. Private schools are reasonably priced and for many public schools receive more money. The reason the top private universities are so expensive is because of demand. When millions of people want to go to MIT, MIT can charge whatever they want.
Now personally I want the best minds going to university, not those with the richest parents. But you can’t state that private schools would become ridiculously expensive.
