You mean: Take away the fish from the man who caught it and give it to the man who didn't.

You can feed an entire family for 10 bucks. - Leon

And for that ten bucks, you could buy a couple of whole chickens, potatoes or rice, some fresh or frozen vegetables, and ROAST the chicken instead of frying it, and make a healthier meal. But that takes some effort.

And fast food restaurants tend to spring up where the owners know they will be successful. So they do their demographics. And if it ends up that their studies show low-income areas are profitable, that's where they'll build.

I just showed above that one can make a healthy meal for the same money. So whose fault is it if low-income earners buy more fast food?

Your theory is flawed to the core.

First, fast food joints place themselves in densely-populated areas. It's all about being close to as many people as you can be. Some fast food restaurants aer placed in areas where lots of people work, too. Again, densely-populated...easy access...fast...

Second, ANYONE can feed an 'entire family' of four for well under $10 dollars. A little sauce, some noodles, even throw some meat in there...or, pack of chicken thighs/legs, cans of corn and green beans...I could do this all day.

Third, you actually took the time to type 'Fast Food is responsible for nearly 100%' for 'our' obesity problem. Guess what? You are simply excusing the inherent laziness that's required by parents that allow their families to eat too much fast food. Food doesn't force people to be fat. People eat too much food in general without getting the proper amount of exersize. It ain't Ronald McDonald's fault that the fat ass doesn't take a walk now and then between Big Macs.

Wigged-out can't bring himself to admit that there's rampant fraud and abuse in these social programs. As long as you can justify a need, however small, there's no need to get wrapped around the axle over such things.

Enabling bad behavior is what liberalism is all about. And there should be no consequences for that behavior - that would be just plain mean!

bass,

I've lost count of the number of times I have been in the checkout line and seen obviously well-fed people (okay, fat-asses) purchasing high-dollar meats and such, using their little taxpayer-supplied debit cards and then go out to the parking lot and load said booty into the trunk of a brand new automobile-often times witht the dealer sticker still affixed to the window.

Never had one of them turn around and say thanks, either.

Where's The Fence, George?

Of course I know that. My stupid ex-wife defrauded the welfare system and the damn IRS snagged my tax returns for 15 years. They would not prosecute her because they said "it wasn't worth their time."

I know another woman who defrauded Medi-Cal (I think that is what they call it) to have them pay for the birth of her baby. She and her husband worked. The problem is her husband worked for his father at their business and got paid under the table so that they could get Medi-cal to pay for the child. You see, the place she worked was so small they did not offer health insurance. Rather than paying for it themselves, they defrauded Medi-Cal. I reported them three separate times. NOTHING happened.

Of course I know there is rampant fraud in social services. I have seen it myself. If the government could get it under control, there would be more than enough money for the people who really need it.

My oldest son and his wife are on food stamps. No, he does not do drugs. Yes, both of them smoke and it does bother me. Both of them work, but without high school diplomas, you are only going to get a menial crap job. So, they have food stamps to help them out.

At least with the debit card system, there is 'less' fraud. Probably not much less, but there is less.

I have done my part trying to report fraud in social services programs. THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN! But that is no reason to deny the services for those that honestly need the help. My son will NOT be on food stamps much longer. He got a better job and that should disqualify him. They did need the help though.

Especially in Sarc's case.  Hahahaha.

Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar. 

RO, regarding giving to charity: I am very cautious about which "charity" I give to. One (among many) criteria is that it must use no more than 5% of donations for "administrative" purposes (including advertising!). I'm not ready to help pay the porsche payment of a "charity" director so that the beneficiaries of the charity can get pennies on the dollar! It's just sad that I as a taxpayer, I don't have the same right to determine who my tax "donation" goes to!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...