Thread: Food Banks Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028930

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :
 
Are these necessary or not? I'm confused about this.

On the one hand, we're told that an individual or family can only receive 2 or 3 food parcels per year from a food bank. So how do the food banks actually relieve ongoing food poverty? That's not to say that they do not assist in a crisis. But long term?

Looked at from another angle. Although undoubtedly there is genuine material hardship in the UK, how did people manage before food banks existed?

Is there a political agenda to the recent growth in food banks?
 
Posted by JeremiahTheProphet (# 18366) on :
 
I think there has always been poverty and need for all sorts of reasons and food banks are one of the ways Christians have responded to help with this.

It has always been a mission of the Church from the book of Acts onwards to do what it can to help relieve poverty
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
If you want to compare:

SF-Marin Food Bank--"Our Work" page.

FoodPantries.org
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
When did food banks "not exist"? Haven't we always had some form of food bank? They would have taken different forms at different times, but even in the 1st c. you have the churches taking up a collections for the poor, for widows and orphans, etc. I think during most eras you would have people who were hungry who would come by the local churches looking for food, and some sort of system for how to respond.
 
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:

On the one hand, we're told that an individual or family can only receive 2 or 3 food parcels per year from a food bank...

That's not the case for any food banks I've known. My thought is that they typically distribute food at least weekly to some families in need.

Naturally the benefits will depend on the resources available, the needs of the community and of each individual/family. There could well be specific food banks or situations that would need to implement such limits, but in my experience they wouldn't be the norm for needy families.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I've occasionally heard of a "2-3 times a year" rule, I think; but IIRC, that was about going directly to the food bank, without going through an agency.

I volunteered at a food bank a few times, through my workplace. Sorted donated food, as part of a team. Fun!

I also had occasion to need their help. They had a deal where you could volunteer for a certain number of hours, and get food to take home. I'm not sure of the details; but I think I volunteered for a few hours and got a bag of food to take home.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Our church collects food for a small food bank that was started by another Episcopal parish but has now grown a bit and is inter-denominational. (I'm the one who delivers the weekly collection to them.) They limit the people who receive the food to one food box per month. That's not enough to live on, but it does help to stretch out what they can buy with Food Stamps (now known as "SNAP"), and what they can buy with what little they make.

No questions are asked when someone registers. According to their website, "Most of our clients are working families. They are employed full-time or part-time, and yet still are in need of supplemental food. We also serve people between jobs, those on fixed incomes, seniors, people with disabilities, and homeless clients."
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I've donated to them, and I've had to use them. I think the rules depend on the food bank. Some are under community-wide organizations, some are run by a few parishes getting together, and some are totally independent.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
My local food bank http://www.westseattlefoodbank.org/services/food-distribution/ allows families once a week for food. Certain baby supplies are once or twice a month.
The parent organization Northwest Harvest was started by a group of churches and is a big state wide operation. It includes donations from supermarkets, and farms.

The donations are limited by what's available from donations, but there are a lot of families that depend on it, especially in some of the more depressed counties in the state.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
In the Netherlands, families can get one parcel every month.

My parents' church operates a food bank. I don't know exactly how it works, but it's partly a government thing. Part of the food comes from donations from church members, part comes from local supermarkets (left-overs I guess?) and I guess part comes from some kind of government scheme.

The church doesn't select who qualifies for receiving a parcel, the government does.

Or at least I think. I'll ask my father the next time I visit.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
The two food banks in my community are basically there to assist in a crisis. What happens, though is if a family of four is on food stamps, they will likely run out of food in 20 days on average. So the food banks end up supplementing the next ten days.

Now, though the Republican congress is talking about slashing the food stamp program even further. Food Banks will then be called on to fill a greater need.

This does not need to happen. Bernie Sanders has said our military spending is more than all the other countries combined. Not sure about that, but roughly 57% of our budget goes to the military. Why not cut out a few unnecessary weapons systems to feed the hungry? There is no need for any child to have to go to bed without a meal today, for for the elderly to eat cat food.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
According to Wikipedia the data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute lists US military expenditure at 36% of the world total. But, it is almost identical to the combined spending of the next 9 largest military spenders, which is probably where the "military spending is more than all the other countries combined" statement is coming from - that would certainly be more than the combined military spend of the rest of NATO, for example.

It's upto US voters to decide whether 57% of government funding, or 3.8% of GDP is excessive. I would say that I'm appalled by the amount the UK is spending on replacing Trident, which is ultimately just for show as it's a weapon system that will never be used - even when there was an identifiable nuclear-armed enemy it was very unlikely that it would be needed. I'm hoping that enough voters agree with me in May and support the parties that are opposed to that massive expenditure when people are feeling the squeeze of austerity (although, no where near as badly as some other nations).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I've occasionally heard of a "2-3 times a year" rule, I think; but IIRC, that was about going directly to the food bank, without going through an agency.

That sounds more like it.

Controls exist because otherwise some people re-sell the food they get, and so on.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I've heard of reselling, but with food from other programs. What I've heard, though, is that it's generally because the sellers don't have cash benefits, or the benefits are too low. Plus, AIUI, for a long time food stamps didn't cover toilet paper, paper towels, etc. I think the rules have improved, a bit.

Food banks in the US have been in bad shape since the 2008 financial crash, if not before. Lots of individuals couldn't afford to donate any longer--and some even wound up needing food banks themselves. Businesses that formerly donated either had much tighter budgets, or went out of business. The SF Food Bank has put out many appeals, over the last several years, because they just didn't have enough food.

The OP asked whether food banks were needed, or a political ploy. Here in the US, they're needed.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
The US does spend a huge amount on military expenditures. It includes programs and bases that the military doesn't want but which are continued because they've located the plants in enough congressional districts that closing them would make it hard for the congressman to get re-elected.

This is currently a big budget fight in Congress between the Republican Fiscal Hawks and the Republican War Hawks. The War Hawks want to exempt military spending from the budget caps that the Fiscal Hawks got in place a few years ago.


There's also a lot of people who don't think that the poor are worthy of subsidy and it's all creeping socialism (and they mean that in a bad way). Oddly enough such people usually are proud to label themselves as Christians.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Our local food bank is there primarily to help in a crisis, rather than long term. The main issue is people who have lost their benefits for a period of time, having been sanctioned.

I don't know the figures, but this is a rural area. I have been told anecdotally that people who live in X town sign on in Y town, but there is no direct bus from X to Y. They have to catch a bus from X to Z, then Z to Y. If one of the buses fails to turn up, or is late, they can end up with no benefits.

As a result, a food bank has been set up in X.
 
Posted by gog (# 15615) on :
 
Many UK foodbanks use a 3 times in a row rule for food parcels; as it is crisis response. Also many UK ones only take people by referral from agencies working with the recipients of the food. Some resource regarding foodbanks here.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
When were there no foodbanks? Well around twenty years ago here in the UK. Not quite true for street drinkers and such there were a few emergency food provisions, but on the whole no food banks. Instead there was a system of state provided emergency grants that sort to get people over short spells of dire financial stringency. The removal of these in the 1990s started the creation of Foodbanks.

What is really interesting was that in those days a dire emergency was often the result of unexpected necessary large expenditure e.g. the buying of protective covers for a bed where I child bedwetted or a new (i.e. new to them) cooker.

The standard today is because the social security has not managed to deal with people's claim in a proper manner or decided to penalise someone for a minor infringement often unavoidable (such as not being able to attend two interviews at the same time).

So Social Security has gone in twenty years from being the people you turned to in these situations to being the people who cause them. The growth in the need and provision in the last five years is staggering.

I want to live again in a society where foodbanks are few and ad hoc affairs that cater for people who really cannot manage money* for some reason. Not where they are an excuse for government not doing its job properly.

Jengie

*as opposed to people who are without money due to circumstances beyond their control.

[ 20. March 2015, 09:23: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :
 
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There have been other changes over the last 20-30 years that are relevant.

One is the nature of shops. It used to be that there were small, local food shops and often slightly larger stores and specialists like butchers or fishmongers on the high street. The vast majority of people could easily get to a shop selling food at more or less the same price. Now we have massive edge of town supermarkets, with buying power to push prices down, only accessible to people with cars. And, the local stores have either closed or been forced to raise prices and cut the range of produce to maintain their income. People without a car either have to pay a small fortune for the rare bus to the supermarket and be limited to how much they can carry, or pay the inflated prices for a limited range of food at their local store - if they still have one. Those of us with sufficient income to run a car, and buy large quantities at a time because we have fridges and freezers to store food, benefit from cheap food. Those on limited income, without a car are forced to buy more expensive food at the local store.

Similar poverty premiums exist for other shopping needs - clothing, bedding, furniture etc are all cheaper if you have the income to go to the edge of town superstores. Even more so if we can buy up front, without relying on loans.

Energy prices also penalise the poor. If you have money to maintain direct debit payments you get cheap energy deals, if you have to rely on paying on an ad-hoc basis through prepayment meters and the like you spend a lot more for your electricity and gas.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Is there a political agenda to the recent growth in food banks?

Certainly, but it's subject to an effective gagging order.

My Dad ran a food bank for two years with the Trussell Trust. Part of their operation was to determine the need; not only if it was genuine, but also the causes behind it. The number 1 reason was benefit sanctions. Yet when the Trussell Trust ever mentioned these, they were deemed to be political and hence overstepping the bounds of a charity.

The food bank my dad ran was in South-West Bedfordshire, where the local Conservative MP was also an aide to Iain Duncan Smith. It was little surprise when The Independent reported that that same MP threatened the Trussell Trust with closure.

A similar complaint was made against Oxfam .

Any attempts to cooperate with the DWP failed as the DWP made it a condition of cooperation that any and all data collection be stopped. But the foodbank could not operate effectively without this.

The Conservative attitude to food banks is well summed up by Hélder Câmara:
quote:
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."

 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Bernie Sanders has said our military spending is more than all the other countries combined. Not sure about that, but roughly 57% of our budget goes to the military.

According to Wikipedia it's about 17% (data from Congressional Budget Office.)

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute puts US military spending at about 37% of the world total.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

I agree. But when government fails to act, we must.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Bernie Sanders has said our military spending is more than all the other countries combined. Not sure about that, but roughly 57% of our budget goes to the military.

According to Wikipedia it's about 17% (data from Congressional Budget Office.)

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute puts US military spending at about 37% of the world total.

The 17% figure comes when you include Social Security in the total budget, which isn't really accurate since in the US it's really more like a self-funded annuity program, despite our legislator's attempts to treat it as a piggy bank. Once you redo the pie chart with actual federal expenditures it looks much more like Sander's figure.
 
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

I agree. But when government fails to act, we must.
Agreed.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Although to compare those numbers with other countries you'll need to recognise that a lot of US government expenditure is made at State, or even more local, level. AIUI, a large proportion of expenditure on policing, criminal justice, education, and other programmes never gets anywhere near the Federal budget. If you put all that in the balance then the proportion of funding on military doesn't stand that far from other countries. As a proportion of GDP, the US is behind Russia in military spending, and a long way behind Saudi Arabia.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Although to compare those numbers with other countries you'll need to recognise that a lot of US government expenditure is made at State, or even more local, level. AIUI, a large proportion of expenditure on policing, criminal justice, education, and other programmes never gets anywhere near the Federal budget. If you put all that in the balance then the proportion of funding on military doesn't stand that far from other countries. As a proportion of GDP, the US is behind Russia in military spending, and a long way behind Saudi Arabia.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If we add in the non-federal government spending, wouldn't that increase the proportion of GDP the US spends on the military? If it's already equal to the next 9 countries, how would it now be behind Russia and Saudia Arabia? Or is it that Russia and Saudia Arabia spend so much more on non-federal policing, criminal justice, education, etc that it puts them that much over the US?

In either event, I'm not sure I would want to include local police funding in a discussion of "military spending", at least not for the purposes of this discussion. Although you do have all that excessive gobs of federal money that was spent post-911 on various sorts of military hardware that has now ended up in local police departments, arguably contributing to things like the Ferguson situation.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
The Trussell Trust ones tend to require referrals from either CAB or the DWP, only allow so many visits a year. Some will also pre-pack parcels whilst others allow their users to select their own items.

Quite a few of the church run food banks run independently of Trussell for that reason. They don’t think that the problems that cause people to need food banks – benefit sanctions, low wages and high outgoings – can be solved with one or two packs of food a year. They want to build relationships with their users and be of more practical help. They also want people to have the dignity of being allowed to choose their own items.

It will be interesting to see how that impacts this election. After helping at ours a few times, there is no way I’ll be voting Tory. Would never vote UKIP anyway! After the comments from the Shadow Social Security Minister about Labour not being the party of the unemployed and her comments about welfare, At the moment, it’s all gone Green.

Given that a lot of our volunteers are elderly, therefore more likely to vote, if that has worked the same way for them, it’s going to be interesting! Without meaning too, this government could have alienated a good part of their voter base in areas that are their traditional heartlands.

I know we need food banks, but the fact that we're returning to an era where they're needed in such a way is just wrong. If you want confirmation that IDS / The Tories have destroyed the welfare state, here it is.

Tubbs
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Although to compare those numbers with other countries you'll need to recognise that a lot of US government expenditure is made at State, or even more local, level. AIUI, a large proportion of expenditure on policing, criminal justice, education, and other programmes never gets anywhere near the Federal budget. If you put all that in the balance then the proportion of funding on military doesn't stand that far from other countries. As a proportion of GDP, the US is behind Russia in military spending, and a long way behind Saudi Arabia.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If we add in the non-federal government spending, wouldn't that increase the proportion of GDP the US spends on the military? If it's already equal to the next 9 countries, how would it now be behind Russia and Saudia Arabia? Or is it that Russia and Saudia Arabia spend so much more on non-federal policing, criminal justice, education, etc that it puts them that much over the US?

In either event, I'm not sure I would want to include local police funding in a discussion of "military spending", at least not for the purposes of this discussion. Although you do have all that excessive gobs of federal money that was spent post-911 on various sorts of military hardware that has now ended up in local police departments, arguably contributing to things like the Ferguson situation.

Alan was talking about including non-military non-federal government spending.
In some countries, most expenditure on policing, criminal justice, education, and other programmes comes from the Central Govt, i.e. the equivalent of the federal budget. If the notional central govt budget includes all this stuff, then the total central budget expenditure goes up and so the proportion of it spent on the military is smaller (as you say, very little military spending comes from other levels of govt).
Does that make sense?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
ah, yes, thanks for the clarification.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's just a complaint about juggling the figures to make a particular point. The "57%" is one way of massaging the figures to make a point (usually that the US spends so much on the military) - as pointed out, because it excludes large parts of federal spending such as the "self-funded annuity program" Social Security budget. I pointed out criminal justice is funded at State level is another example of an expenditure that in many countries comes from central government.

My guess is that if someone attempts to produce a "government expenditure"* that tries to account for the differences in what is and isn't paid for by different governments then my guess would be that US military expenditure as a proportion of "government expenditure" would be more or less the same as everyone else. So, the question of why we spend so much on the military when we have people dependent on food banks is one we all have to answer.

 

* the use of quotations is deliberate, because there are parts of some government expenditures that get covered by private monies in other countries. Health care would be a prime example, how do we accurately compare one country where the majority of health care is paid through private insurance schemes with another where the majority of health care is paid through central/regional government? You need to have a "government expenditure" that either includes private health insurance payments where that is the norm, or excludes state funded health care to compare ... in whichever case you're no longer looking at what the government actually spends.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

My guess is that if someone attempts to produce a "government expenditure"* that tries to account for the differences in what is and isn't paid for by different governments then my guess would be that US military expenditure as a proportion of "government expenditure" would be more or less the same as everyone else.
.

My guess is that it would still be significantly larger than other places. It seems like we've got a lot more of the heavy machinery-- the big ticket items the Pentegon loves so well-- than pretty much anyone else. But that may be the way my perspective has been skewed by the crowd I hang out with and hearing the 57% figure so much.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

My guess is that if someone attempts to produce a "government expenditure"* that tries to account for the differences in what is and isn't paid for by different governments then my guess would be that US military expenditure as a proportion of "government expenditure" would be more or less the same as everyone else.
.

My guess is that it would still be significantly larger than other places. It seems like we've got a lot more of the heavy machinery-- the big ticket items the Pentegon loves so well-- than pretty much anyone else. But that may be the way my perspective has been skewed by the crowd I hang out with and hearing the 57% figure so much.
Yes, I'm sure there are countries that spend a lot less on military, and countries that spend more. I've just looked up UK Treasury figures, and we spend a total of £731 billion across central and local government, £45.6 billion on defence - that's 6.2%.

The wikipedia page you linked to earlier lists the US Federal expenditure as £3,500 billion, with $596 billion on defence (the 17% figure). How much is spent by the States? How much is spent by medical insurance on the health care included in the UK figures? Is it unreasonable to say that between what the States spend and what medical insurance spends that these will be approximately equal to the Federal expenditure? If so, the US spends $596 on defence out of $7,000 billion, 8.5%. Higher than the UK, but not that much higher - and, of course, my guestimate of what the States and health insurance pays may be low.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

The wikipedia page you linked to earlier

fyi: that wasn't me. I don't have any hard figures, just going on the usual "what I've always heard", with all the reliability that goes with that.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Sorry I did not get to respond sooner. The 57% figure I cited deals with discretionary spending. When you include mandatory spending (entitlements like Social Security) and debt repayment, the total military spending hoovers around 19% depending on which source you follow.

The current Republican budget proposal will either kick 11 million people off of food stamps, or reduce the amount given to individual recipients by $55.

Let me speak to that. My brother is completely disabled. He lives on Social Security Disability (which is do to run out in a couple of years if not funded) and food stamps. Last year he got $210 a month on food stamps. This year he is getting only $167 per month due to a cut last year. Let me ask you, do you think you can feed yourself on $167 per month? How about $112 per month next year?

Fortunately my other brother and his family are hunters and farmers so they can keep my disabled brother well stocked with food.

But if a person did not have such resources where do you think they will turn? Food Banks. The cuts will mean a person will get about 15 days a month covered by food stamps. Food Banks cannot cover the difference.

The Republicans claim this will save $128 billion over ten years.

I know a better way to save money. Discontinue the FX Joint Strike Fighter Program. That would save over $1 Trillion dollars in ten years.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Vintage bumpersticker:

"It will be a great day when schools get all the money they need, and the Pentagon has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Vintage bumpersticker:

"It will be a great day when schools get all the money they need, and the Pentagon has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

OTOH, people can make local or private arrangements for schools. In fact, until recently all the funding for public schools was local. Would you like a society where people make local or private plans for national defense?

There is a reason why national defense is one of the few duties laid on the federal government by the Constitution.

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Vintage bumpersticker:

"It will be a great day when schools get all the money they need, and the Pentagon has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

OTOH, people can make local or private arrangements for schools. In fact, until recently all the funding for public schools was local.
It's still primarily local in the US. Which is precisely why you have such massive inequalities in education in the US. Rich communities have great schools, meaning the kids of these rich folks are able to go to free public schools, get a good education, and go on to become rich adults. Poor communities have crappy schools, poor families either send their kids to these crappy schools, leaving them ill-equipped to compete with those rich kids, or they have to somehow scrape up the $$ for private schools. It's a significant reason why the income gap is so huge in the US.

It's also a major driver in housing bubbles like the one that preceded the great recession. In California in particular, the huge inequities in funding for local schools means that identical houses that are literally across the street from one another may differ in price by $100K or more, if they straddle a school district line separating a great district from a crappy one.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Bernie Sanders has said our military spending is more than all the other countries combined. Not sure about that, but roughly 57% of our budget goes to the military.

According to Wikipedia it's about 17% (data from Congressional Budget Office.)

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute puts US military spending at about 37% of the world total.

The 17% figure comes when you include Social Security in the total budget, which isn't really accurate since in the US it's really more like a self-funded annuity program, despite our legislator's attempts to treat it as a piggy bank. Once you redo the pie chart with actual federal expenditures it looks much more like Sander's figure.
Thanks for the explanation - but that distinction seems specious at best. By that logic, if we just put a separate line on everybody's paycheck for a military tax, we could say the military was also "self-funded." Social Security was established by the government, is run by the government, and is "self-funded" by taxes (or, indirectly, borrowing), same as everything else.

As for total US government spending (all levels), I found a site which gives this for 2015:
Based on total government spending instead of federal spending, the US military would account for 10% instead of 17%. (I'm assuming that all state and local spending is "non-military", which is probably not exactly right - but it won't be higher than 17%, anyway.)

Some international comparisons just use military spending as a fraction of GDP, as Alan suggested (Wikipedia has a sortable list here.) For example, the NATO countries have agreed on a 2% guideline (scroll down here to see the results.)
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Yes, I think subsequent posts by Alan and others explained that well.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

I agree. But when government fails to act, we must.
The current situation in the UK isn't caused by the government failing to act but is instead a consequence of government action.

This was Jengie's point:
quote:
..... The standard today is because the social security has not managed to deal with people's claim in a proper manner or decided to penalise someone for a minor infringement often unavoidable (such as not being able to attend two interviews at the same time).

So Social Security has gone in twenty years from being the people you turned to in these situations to being the people who cause them. ....

The latest developments which combine all benefits into a 'Universal Credit' could create even more hardship since delays and sanctions may have a greater impact - loss of housing benefit for example.

Changes for lone parent claimants now means that even those who are not required to look for work because of the age of the youngest child can still be required to attend 'work-focused interviews' and training. The number of interviews and training sessions is decided by an assigned 'work coach'. Sanctions in these circumstances will have a direct impact on young children.

The UK government has been very busy with its welfare reforms and can't be accused of failing to act. However one of the consequence of its actions is an increased risk of hardship for some of the most vulnerable.

[ 21. March 2015, 12:49: Message edited by: justlooking ]
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

I agree. But when government fails to act, we must.
For the last 10 years, two churches in my town jointly opened cold-weather shelters for the homeless. They did so because existing, "official" local shelters were overwhelmed and deaths due to hypothermia in the winter months were rising.

Much publicity, much outcry, the forming of a city commission followed. This winter, after virtually exhausting the resources (to say nothing of the congregational volunteers who staffed the church shelters), the churches decided to permnently end their shelter efforts. In response, the commission released a report ( called a "plan," though after reading it I saw no plans to assist the sheltered folks) which described the scope and nature of the local chronically homeless population. The church shelters are permanently closing down at the end of this month.

IME, where private charity steps in, government is perfectly happy to step out. Cruel as it seems to say so, it may be, over the long haul, a bad idea for private charity to step in, at least without demanding accountability from the government at the same time.
 
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :
 
Porridge, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, private charity should not participate in meeting any needs.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Porridge, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, private charity should not participate in meeting any needs.

Not every suggestion is logically run down to its end point.
This bit
quote:
at least without demanding accountability from the government at the same time.
is an important qualifier.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

I agree. But when government fails to act, we must.
This is so interesting because in the US, the argument so often runs the other way. When private charity cannot meet the needs, the government needs to act.

The way to obviate this, of course, is to show that there are "unworthy poor" who don't deserve either charity or government help. Although how people can fucking sleep at night believing this and claiming to be Christian, I do not know.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

I agree. But when government fails to act, we must.
This is so interesting because in the US, the argument so often runs the other way. When private charity cannot meet the needs, the government needs to act.
Really? The argument I hear most often is the reverse-- that government is "overstepping its bounds" in caring for the poor/ providing a safety net-- and that it is the "job" of churches and non-profits, who can do it so much better.

The reality, of course, is very much what porridge observed-- churches and nonprofits lack the resources to do so effectively.

Your point re the "unworthy" vs. "worthy" poor are on target. When charity is left to churches and nonprofits, the "worthy" poor will be served, but the "unworthy" not so much. I am in charge of our churches bad weather shelter-- which serves a lot of people generally considered the "unworthy" poor-- drug addicts, ex-cons, mentally ill with poor social skills. It is true that many are there thru their own bad choices (of course, the rest of us make bad choices too-- we're just fortunate enough to have someone to bail us out when we do). Our church is pretty committed to serving them. But it's still hard to raise funds for the so-called "unworthy". It's a lot easier to raise funds for the elderly and for kids (we have housing programs for them in our city). The pretty people will always get served first. Even churches with the best of intentions, and a good theology of "serving the least among us" are going to find it hard going to raise funds for people who are surly or unpleasant or aggressive. Which is why government aid is needed.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Your point re the "unworthy" vs. "worthy" poor are on target. When charity is left to churches and nonprofits, the "worthy" poor will be served, but the "unworthy" not so much.

I think this goes for government assistance too. Sometimes it's very clear, as in the nine states that require people receiving food stamps to pass drug tests. Sometimes it's less clear, as in the hoops you have to jump through to receive government assistance, which aren't labelled as a method of excluding people but which functionally mean only the more capable and clear thinking poor people get help.

This is not only immoral, it's stupid.

[ 21. March 2015, 17:26: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
As Chesterton remarked, charity to the Deserving is not charity, it is justice.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is so interesting because in the US, the argument so often runs the other way. When private charity cannot meet the needs, the government needs to act.

Really? The argument I hear most often is the reverse-- that government is "overstepping its bounds" in caring for the poor/ providing a safety net-- and that it is the "job" of churches and non-profits, who can do it so much better.
I think you are seeing the same thing I am. The one is the liberal argument, the other the conservative. The former is responding to the latter, saying, "yes, fine, private charity is all well and good, BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH."

quote:
The reality, of course, is very much what porridge observed-- churches and nonprofits lack the resources to do so effectively.
Which is exactly what I thought I was saying.

quote:
The pretty people will always get served first. Even churches with the best of intentions, and a good theology of "serving the least among us" are going to find it hard going to raise funds for people who are surly or unpleasant or aggressive. Which is why government aid is needed.
Agree completely.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
The argument about why a government operated financial grant is better than charity actually has nothing to do with whether charities could do it. The argument is about the dignity of the poor. It is held to be demeaning to depend on other people's charitable feeling for survival, it also takes away from the poor what self determination they do have.

If you get £50 to spend then you can determine what sort of food and whether cigarettes are included. If you go to a food bank then you get what you are given (often cheap food e.g. they rarely have fresh fruit and vegetables) and you then have to try and use it to survive. Foodbank food can be wasted simply because people cannot find a way to use it (imagine being given tinned food if you do not have a tin openner).

Jengie
 
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
To reply to the OP.

We host a Churches Together Food Bank project in our community.

From the stories we hear people are coming to our food bank where (in the context of a family unit) the dad/mum has a full time job but this is low paid. Dad/mums salary pays for the rent, bills but this leaves next to nothing to feed the family.

For others they come for a varied amount of reasons including that the safety net they once had from the state has been removed by the state.

There's also issues surrounding how individuals are sanctioned and have their benefits withdrawn (IMHO this system is heartless) and then come to the food bank.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
It was actually Martin Luther who argued that the care of the poor was the responsibility of the community. He set up the first Community Chests in Germany in which residents were to share in the promotion of of the community. The needy were expected to repay the community chest when they returned to solvency.

This evolved into the socialized welfare programs of many nations.

Of course, conservatives have been fighting this from the get go, arguing the same old tired saw: "Let the church do it."

The United Way in the United States also claims its origins in Luther's Community Chest program BTW
 
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The argument about why a government operated financial grant is better than charity actually has nothing to do with whether charities could do it. The argument is about the dignity of the poor. It is held to be demeaning to depend on other people's charitable feeling for survival, it also takes away from the poor what self determination they do have.

If you get £50 to spend then you can determine what sort of food and whether cigarettes are included. If you go to a food bank then you get what you are given (often cheap food e.g. they rarely have fresh fruit and vegetables) and you then have to try and use it to survive. Foodbank food can be wasted simply because people cannot find a way to use it (imagine being given tinned food if you do not have a tin openner).

Jengie

I agree with this. Surely, though, it is possible for a food bank recipient to get hold of an inexpensive can opener. Or food banks could keep a stock of them to give out to recipients of food on request (clear signage could be displayed that they are available). With the problems we have, surely such an issue should be easily overcomable.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
If you have no money for food, where do you get the money for an inexpensive can opener? I know foodbanks that keep a stock to hand out but it is just the simplest of requirements. Gas and electricity cut off because no ability to pay bills, shared cooking facilities, stuff in the box does not work to create a meal, culturally wrong stuff so does not know how to make a meal etc, etc,

Jengie

[ 22. March 2015, 16:32: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
If you have no money for food, where do you get the money for an inexpensive can opener?

Jengie

I'm not sure if this a problem.

A bigger problem is the fact people don't know how to cook a proper meal and live off Pot Noodles.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
If you have no money for food, where do you get the money for an inexpensive can opener?

Jengie

I'm not sure if this a problem.

A bigger problem is the fact people don't know how to cook a proper meal and live off Pot Noodles.

Enough of a problem for at least one foodbank to provide them (actually has always been a problem when dealing with those who have a chaotic lifestyle, the very early foodbank I knew of also provided them).

The comment about pot noodle is totally unfair on these people. The case where culturally at a loss with products was because the standard diet was meat and two veg! It was pot noodle that was getting thrown away because they did not know what to do with it.

Jengie
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
If you have no money for food, where do you get the money for an inexpensive can opener? I know foodbanks that keep a stock to hand out but it is just the simplest of requirements. Gas and electricity cut off because no ability to pay bills, shared cooking facilities, stuff in the box does not work to create a meal, culturally wrong stuff so does not know how to make a meal etc, etc,

Jengie

Our local food bank provides tin openers if needed. They have a list of basic foodstuffs which they ask people to donate, which provides three days food. People do go "off-list" when donating, but those items are extras (i.e. I sometimes donate toothpaste).

Each food parcel aims to provide a box of breakfast cereal, plus a carton of long-life milk, for breakfasts which don't need cooking facilities. One main meal based on pasta (one saucepan and a ring required) - pasta mixed with tinned tuna for example. One main meal based on tinned meat and veg and instant potato - again something which can be cooked in a single saucepan on a single ring. One tinned soup and a tinned pudding meal. Plus tea or coffee, and a packet of biscuits, plus jam or something to make a meal of sandwiches (person has to buy the bread).

Then they'll top that up if they have extras - a toilet roll, or a tube of toothpaste, or a carton of fruit juice. At Christmas, ours got a lot of chocolate advent calendars, and I assume that there'll be chocolate eggs for Easter.

They work on the basis that everything can be cooked either with boiling water from a kettle, or on a single ring.
 
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :
 
Re recent discussion, I suppose the problem of poor or inadequate diet is not just a problem of inadequate or no funds to buy the foodstuffs. It may involve any one or more of lack of cooking utensils, lack of crockery/cutlery, poor (or no) cooking facilities (eg no oven), poor cooking skills etc etc. Food banks are only a very small, if essential, part of the solution.
 
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
quote:
Jengie posted: The comment about pot noodle is totally unfair on these people. The case where culturally at a loss with products was because the standard diet was meat and two veg! It was pot noodle that was getting thrown away because they did not know what to do with it.
It's actually a reality. The number of people who use pot noodles as a meal because they don't know how to take a tin of tomato's, some pasta and add another ingredient is concerning.

Some food banks even offer cooking classes to help people in such situations.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
It was actually Martin Luther who argued that the care of the poor was the responsibility of the community. He set up the first Community Chests in Germany in which residents were to share in the promotion of of the community. The needy were expected to repay the community chest when they returned to solvency.

This evolved into the socialized welfare programs of many nations.

Of course, conservatives have been fighting this from the get go, arguing the same old tired saw: "Let the church do it."

The United Way in the United States also claims its origins in Luther's Community Chest program BTW
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
If you have no money for food, where do you get the money for an inexpensive can opener?

Jengie

I'm not sure if this a problem.

A bigger problem is the fact people don't know how to cook a proper meal and live off Pot Noodles.

It is a problem, at least in US.

Many of our clients are homeless. They have to cart all their belongings around with them as they are herded by the police all night long from one place to the next (very difficult to sleep, exasperating problems they are dealing with re mental illness and/or poor social skills). Often they are robbed. So, it's not easy for them to hang onto a can opener. And a lot of canned food then needs to be cooked in some way, without a kitchen and pots & pans there's no way to do that.

[ 22. March 2015, 20:12: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The argument about why a government operated financial grant is better than charity actually has nothing to do with whether charities could do it. The argument is about the dignity of the poor. It is held to be demeaning to depend on other people's charitable feeling for survival, it also takes away from the poor what self determination they do have.

If you get £50 to spend then you can determine what sort of food and whether cigarettes are included. If you go to a food bank then you get what you are given (often cheap food e.g. they rarely have fresh fruit and vegetables) and you then have to try and use it to survive. Foodbank food can be wasted simply because people cannot find a way to use it (imagine being given tinned food if you do not have a tin openner).

Jengie

AIUI, the issue of dignity is also a problem with US food vouchers, as there is a defined list of what can be purchased with them. As you say, self-determination (including the ability of make what others might think of as bad decisions) is an important part of human dignity.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
This Lecture on the morality of the food parcel was given by Dr Helen Cameron, Oxford Centre for Ecclesiology and Practical Theology and Head of Public Affairs for The Salvation Army

It makes very interesting reading.
 
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :
 
Food banks are most definitely needed! It's a sad commentary on society but the poor aren't going away! I've used food banks in the past and nearly had to go to one this month but luckily our disability checks arrived today. I never volunteered at a food bank but I remember when I lived in transitional housing in the U-District in Seattle, a roommate volunteered at the food bank and then got to pick out some nice food items for her time. When my wife and I relocate to the Seattle area at the end of April, I plan to volunteer, whether or not I get food for myself is irrelevant. I gotta help my brothers and sisters somehow.
 
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
It was actually Martin Luther who argued that the care of the poor was the responsibility of the community. He set up the first Community Chests in Germany in which residents were to share in the promotion of of the community. The needy were expected to repay the community chest when they returned to solvency.

This evolved into the socialized welfare programs of many nations.

Of course, conservatives have been fighting this from the get go, arguing the same old tired saw: "Let the church do it."

The United Way in the United States also claims its origins in Luther's Community Chest program BTW

A few years back a group of Atlanta area churches was given a huge donation or grant to feed the homeless. Our pastor at the time was one of the ministers invited to help figure out how the grant would be distributed. He told us it was really crazy: 90% of the pastors were insistent that the poor people who wanted food or other aid be required to show picture i.d., a Social Security card, proof of address or if homeless, proof that they were attending Sunday services at a church--getting a signed letter from a pastor! Our pastor took as much of this bull as he could stand and then he jumped to his feet and said, "Would Jesus require a letter from a pastor? Would Jesus require a valid picture i.d.?". Boy, those pastors were MAD! They hotly countered with, "But if we don't require some sort of valid identification or proof of address, some of these people are going to take advantage of our largess!" And so the arguments continued... [brick wall]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Our local municipality, which overall is a beacon of compassion compared to our surrounding cities, wants us to certify that all the homeless guests at our shelter (most of the funding comes from a federal grant administered by the city) demonstrate that they are "cityX residents". I've yet to figure out how a homeless person would demonstrate residency.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Surely, though, it is possible for a food bank recipient to get hold of an inexpensive can opener. Or food banks could keep a stock of them to give out to recipients of food on request (clear signage could be displayed that they are available). With the problems we have, surely such an issue should be easily overcomable.

Thanks -- this inspired me to go to the local dollar store and get a bunch of can openers to go with next week's food collection. I need to remember to do this every once in a while.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Re recent discussion, I suppose the problem of poor or inadequate diet is not just a problem of inadequate or no funds to buy the foodstuffs. It may involve any one or more of lack of cooking utensils, lack of crockery/cutlery, poor (or no) cooking facilities (eg no oven), poor cooking skills etc etc. Food banks are only a very small, if essential, part of the solution.

With the homeless folks I have volunteered with, an even tougher problem for adequate nutrition is the lack of teeth.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Surely, though, it is possible for a food bank recipient to get hold of an inexpensive can opener. Or food banks could keep a stock of them to give out to recipients of food on request (clear signage could be displayed that they are available). With the problems we have, surely such an issue should be easily overcomable.

Thanks -- this inspired me to go to the local dollar store and get a bunch of can openers to go with next week's food collection. I need to remember to do this every once in a while.
[Smile]
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This Lecture on the morality of the food parcel was given by Dr Helen Cameron, Oxford Centre for Ecclesiology and Practical Theology and Head of Public Affairs for The Salvation Army

It makes very interesting reading.

Mudfrog - I found that really interesting, especially the idea of giving gift cards so that people could choose their own food.

Dr Cameron mentions the requirement in NZ for people to attend budgeting advice after they have received X number of food parcels. I know some people who have come up against that requirement and find it more restricting than being given food items rather than money. I would suggest it needs to be handled more sensitively than it sometimes is as it can be experienced by the recipients as a judgement on the the choices they are making, rather than an attempt to work with them. Just because people are receiving assistance from a church, rather than a government agency doesn't automatically mean they are being treated with dignity.

Huia
 
Posted by The Intrepid Mrs S (# 17002) on :
 
Mr S spends one day a week at a food bank. People who need food are referred from outside agencies and are given food for 5 days, in theory a maximum of 3 times per year (but in practice it may be more than that). This food, by the way, does include fresh fruit, vegetables and bread - although many will reject any fresh produce on the grounds that they don't know how to cook it.

They would NEVER ever give anyone food they couldn't or wouldn't eat, and if the client has no way to cook they are given food that can be eaten from the can. And yes, they hand out can openers too (and toothbrushes and other toiletries too.)

Sometimes people try and con them (the food bank, that is), but their rationale is that Jesus told them to feed the hungry. Not the deserving hungry, just the hungry.

HOWEVER it is fair to say that no-one will give you a new phone, or fags, or booze - but they will give you food.

It is also fair to say that no matter how good the benefits system is - and in the UK it is relatively excellent - there will always be people who need food banks.

Finally, they are very proud that their clients are all treated as people not as numbers, and the food bank staff have discretion that government departments do not.

They are not, by the way, a Trussell Trust food bank - they pre-date them.

Mrs. S, who has spent her life saying 'it's not that simple'
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0