Non profits? Churches as mentioned above? A combination of different approaches? Don’t we pay politicians and policy makers big money to come up with these kinds of solutions? Why is it up to me to do that? All I know is, since the government declared a so-called “war on poverty” things have only gotten worse even though we spend more money than ever.

Let me turn the question around to you—why do *you* believe government is the best way to help people? From what I have seen in my life, it’s usually the least effective means of solving any problem.

I also challenge how many children are actually “hungry.” How is that even determined? Do they ask kids? What is the basis for deciding this? And why can’t we just feed the ones who really are hungry instead of allowing those who are perfectly capable of providing meals to their children to freeload off of everyone else if they choose to? That’s my problem with all of these government programs, they use exorbitant amounts of money and only end up helping a small proportion of those in real need. I hear people say “oh well I would rather have the programs available even if some don’t need it and at least some in need will also be helped.” But that is totally ignoring the concept of opportunity cost. Despite what some people seem to think, funds are not unlimited. If we use part of our money to help people who don’t actually need it, then less money is available for people who truly do. I am not okay with that. I’m also not okay with financially supporting a cumbersome and inefficient bureaucracy to distribute the funds and services to needy people.

Don’t feel obligated to respond, if you don’t want to take the time. It’s been a very interesting discussion that would be far easier in person than typing out long replies 😕 I am in the middle of a very busy week and I am not sure if I will be able to continue the exchange, as interesting and thought provoking as it’s been. 😕