Depends... are they sharing this crack with me?

Totally kidding. This is a tough one.

I'd give the money.

hmmm...hard one. but I think the needs of the hungry family would outweigh the *sigh* outrage of feeding the crack habit.

Yes. It is my responsibility to help when I can regardless of how the money is used.
It is not up to me to ensure the money is used "properly"

Donation? Sure.

But if someone was going to throw me in jail if I didn't? Well then you're talking about taxes, and just playing semantics to try and prove a naive point.

absolutely I would give the money. If I felt at all uncomfortable with my decision, I would give a little money to some sort of secular rehab program that has a reputation for helping addicts.

But don't you always wonder if you would actually do what you would hypothetically do? I wonder all the time.

Yes.

Being the cynic I am, I am convinced the crack-head would score the drug with or without my money. Maybe by robbing and stealing.

But the hungry family would stay hungry.

Alas, this is not a choice that scales well (i.e. helping one third world country, but only if you help a neighboring dictatorship).

No. Funny you should post this today because after a lot of soul searching I've recently come to conclusion that if anything regarding money resulted in a negative outcome, EVEN if part of it was positive, that it's not worth it.

1 good + 1 bad = right where you started.

Good timing, Dooce. Love your blog.

Sure, because the crack-head's gonna find the drug somewhere anyway but the hungry ones may be depending on me alone.

I already donate to poor people - the government takes that from me via taxes. You know, the money tat goes to all those government programs that the bleeding heart liberals feel we need.
You can take the crack addict out of the equation, I still wouldn't donate to the poor family.

Without thinking, yes, I would give the money if I had it.

Try this one on for size:

Would you make this donation, even if you knew there was a possibility that the guy who bought crack would kill those children on the street?

no.

think of it this way - you give money to someone you know would use it for crack & during a binge one night, they run into the family you helped feed. they are high & out of it and in a daze, they crash their car into the family as they cross the street, or their drug dealer fires & kills one of the children during an argument, etc.

butterfly effect.

one cancels out the other.

Sure! Let the crack head go screw himself! If it's a desperate family with hungry children? You betcha. Why should the children suffer because the crackhead has a problem?

#23, there's a possiblity that the crackhead "might" kill the children on the street.
There's also the possiblity that he might not. I'd take the risk.

yes, without hesitation. i would always rather err on the side of mercy than judgement.

And the "cancels each other out"-thing doesn't apply here at all, since for the crackhead a fix more or less doesn't really make a difference (yeah, I know, unless it's the last one yadda yadda), whereas help for someone desperate makes a world of difference.

The hungry family may not necessarily be decent people - maybe they sell crack. You just say they are desperate and willing to use the donation to feed their children. The people who buy crack ... maybe they are more desperate than the family who needs the food. Who knows? No matter, I wouldn't want children to suffer and go hungry, so I would donate so they could be fed and know kindness. Maybe the crack users were once children that no one helped feed - and they grew up only knowing desperation.

yes.

Yes, of course.

no. because the crackhead would just steal the food from the family while he was high on crack.

Of course. (I suspect this question is about politics, but it doesn't really matter.) Why would you withhold good from someone?

Donate the freaking money.

i would because i know that the crack addict would get the drugs anyway. i'm not naive enough to think that b/c i didn't give the addict money it would cure them.

i'm also not naive to think that the donation to help the family is a permanent fix, either. i feed them once, and tomorrow they're asking for more.

but i do what i can to help in the way that i can.

Interesting scenerio ... I think that I would do it, give the money, thinking that it's sort of a method of population control. Some people will be saved, and the self-destructive drug addict might die a little quicker.

Just a thought, but not necessarily the *right* one.

You and Jon fight over the weirdest things.

I would give the money. The good you'd be doing would outweigh the bad. The people buying crack would be buying it anyway but this way you get to help deserving people as well.

hmmmm. Very clever question.

I am all for bailing out Wall Street (the crack family) If it will save Main Street (the hungry family)

C-

I'd tell them no and take the first family to a program that would give treat them as an individual and not lump them with the crack family - then I'd sneak the kids away from the crack heads and feed them and find them better parents and have the parents put out in the country on a working farm - my company has a great program that I work with for families that have been affected by hardship - we literally look at each individual family and if we can't help them to the extent they need we pool other organizations to help - hard work yes, but effective. And let's be honest - we have more time now than we ever had - if we can play on facebook and blogs we DO have the time to help people, myself the blog fan included.

Absolutely not.

#9....well said.

Yes.

I turn to Spock (as in Star Trek, not Dr.): The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

therefore, help the family -

Basically, as others have said, you cannot rationalize NOT helping people when you are able to help by creating a false counterweight of "but someone else will do something "bad"

no- i wouldn't.

but i would spend my time teaching the family in need how to earn money. i would help them learn a trade, or help them raise money through a church or school. giving them money would only help temporarily.

what's that phrase- give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

yeah- that's more my style.

I would be more creative and find some other way to help that family without helping the other.

Absolutely. The family who needs food trumps the crackhead.

To the person who left the comment about "bleeding heart liberals:" I haven't heard that kind of crap since "All in the Family" went off the air. Come on, Archie Bunker, step into the new millennium. Also, you can choose to think of your tax dollars as paying for police, fire fighters and the DEA if you want. You don't have to see it as your tax dollars paying for, god forbid, foodstamps.

(BTW, the comment about the crackhead's fix "being the last one" is really ignorant. Crackheads don't overdose. Smoking crack isn't something that kills directly like injecting cocaine or heroin.)

Yep!

This sounds oddly similar to where my taxes already go

I would have to say yes because at the very least......you are helping somebody to feed innocent children who need the assistance.....I would have to not think about the crack family and only the ones truly in need to make it justified. It is all about those that we HELP in a good way........that is the focus, I believe.

This is difficult, but I'd give the money. I know what drug addiction can do to people and the great lengths they'll go to in order to feed their addiction, the hungry family is depending on me.

Children are innocent creatures in this world, we have absolutely no reason for them to go hungry. They are our responsibilities.

the crackhead will get his/her fix no matter what, so helping the family is the obvious choice.

Hmmm. . . I think I would try to give food instead of money. If that were a possibility. It does avoid giving money to the crack addict. We have fed a few down and outers who were clearly addicted to something, but did not give the actual money. Seems like the better thing to do. I understand the issue of the kids being involved though. I would want to help for the kids.
Tammy

Yes. The crack buyer will find some other way to get crack anyway.

For some reason, this reminds me of people who don't want to pay taxes to help other people who really need it--because you never know, some of it might end up in the hands of a lazy person. Hmmmmmmmm.

Well the nice thing about your vote for a Democratic candidate is that you won't have to answer questions like that. The Governement won't give you the choice - they will just take it from you and you will like it. :o)

But for me? I would not give the family money - I would give them food. And throw a few pounds to the crack addict, too.

I wouldn't even think about it, given the fact that I *knew* the hungry family would use it to feed and nourish themselves and their children.

Whilst the crack addict doesn't need the drug to sustain his life, the family does need the food to sustain their lives. The crack addict if going to get his fix one way or another, and likely he might harm someone else in an effort to obtain the drugs.

Side on generosity.

Yes, I would do it. It didn't take me long to decide.

The people I'd be giving money for crack to are probably already addicted, which means they would find some other way to get the crack no matter what.

Yes, I would. It's the right thing to do.

No.

I'd invite the family over for dinner. I'd make them a wonderful dinner and eat it with them. Then, I'd make their kids hot fudge sundaes with whipped cream and cherries for dessert. I'd let them know they can come over for dinner anytime they'd like.

After they left, I'd find the crack addict and give him/her a sandwich. Crack addicts get hungry too.

I think that's the challenge you face whenever you donate money. SOME of it isn't going to go where you want it to, but is it then better not to help at all?

what's the phrase about teaching a man to fish....

teach the family to sell crack, introduce the crack head to the "new dealer".

it works for everyone--the family is making money, he crackhead gets his crack and you do your civic duty.

A definite yes.

Living in Canada, we seem to do this all the time; Methadone clinics, free needle sites...and take care of those with other needs.

I wouldn't do it.

I'd give food to the family, not money.

Yep, I'd donate. Who knows? The person who buys the crack might go on to make amazing art, or cure cancer, or quit crack and take good care of kids and old folks.

Yes. The person buying crack is already being stupid and ruining their life with it. That's their decision. If I can afford to give money to a poor family and they really need it, I will do so. If the crack addict chooses to buy crack with his share, well, I honestly feel like that's his or her problem.

I find it interesting how many readers are assuming that the players in the situation (a hungry family and a crack addict) are somehow related by interaction when, as posited, their only link is the Donor.

In my case, the answer is No. I don't willingly support broken systems, and I don't accept that this premise is the only way of providing aid to those in need.

Feed a hungry family a meal and assist them to provide for themselves in the future; provide nourishment and dignity.

For those addicted to drugs, forced rehabilitation is an oxymoron; addictions can only be truly overcome by true internal desire and willpower. I can't force a course correction, but I can refuse to enable the addict.

Wow - wheredja find this one? In between the couch cushions? Yikes!

My feeling is this: The people who want the crack are gonna find the money somewhere, somehow. The people who need the food might not be as lucky. So I would cough up the cash to both and hope and pray that my good deed might make enough of a difference in BOTH families that good change could come from my actions.

More pics of the kids - all three of them - and less angst. On the night of the debate of all things! LOL!

I'd just spend it all on hookers & beer, Dooce.

I'm all about helping people as I was homeless growing up.
I totally don't mind my tax dollars going to people inn need

I JUST WISH THEY WOULD DRUG SCREEN PEOPLE BEFORE THEY GAVE THEM WELFARE.

Yes. Absolutely.

I'd buy the family food. Is money the only solution?

I would absolutely donate the money to both parties. No one is responsible for another's choice. If the crack head wants to light up the money, that's what they'll do with or without the donation. At least the deserving family benefits. I would, however, report the clucker to police, even though they'd be released in hours.

This right here is why I couldn't ever be a world leader - these must be the choices they face everyday, with the decision affecting not two families but thousands or millions. Whenever I wanted to hurl a brick at George Bush's smug monkey face on TV, I'd try to remember this. (For the record, I'm not sure it ever worked. Enlightenment is way beyond me, I fear.)

To answer the question: Yes, I would give the money. To the family, for obvious reasons. I would justify giving to the crack addict by telling myself that a crack addict is going to get the money somewhere, and maybe my money would save at least one victim. I'd like to think that the good in that action would outweigh the bad.

Am I right? No clue. One of the many reasons why I don't lead so much as a girl scout troupe.

Um- yes. That doesn't seem tough at all. The family without food is in need.

Being blunt, I'll give the money for the food, thinking that the crackhead would get his/her fix countless times more anyways, I just happen to be providing it this time

of course, this is assuming it really was such a narrow situation

Is this some sort of comparison to the so-called Bailout that Congress came up with?

Yes. The desperate family shouldn't have to suffer or lose out because of a crack family....

i'd give the money. you can't stop an addict- they have to want to stop.

In a heartbeat, give the money.

I believe a lot of the comments are missing the point and that this post was a parable for the welfare system. Or I am reading way too much into the post.

That being said, I loath the current situation in this country where it is more profitable and often more socially acceptable for a high schooler to get pregnant rather than go to college or trade school when we link money to children for "desperate families" who would use the donated money to feed their children - there has to be a better way.

I would rather supply food to the family and the crackhead.

Yes. Just yes. No "feeding a family trumps the crack addict" or "I'd donate food instead!"
It's a yes or no question.

Give them the money. Why let kids suffer for a crackhead? The crackhead will find crack however he can, whether you give him money or not - the kids don't have that same option.

xoxo

Yes.

Why not say, 'f_ck the crack head', and give YOUR OWN money to the hungry family so that the crack head doesn't get ANY?

not sure what the point of your question is. obviously it's not a win-win situation. are you wondering why people do what they do, or are you being provocative?
either way, i'm happy to see that most people are on the side of 'giving' no matter what the cost. that makes me feel good. and i'd do it. yes, no hesitation.

Left leaning is fine if you are that way for the right reasons, however I find most Democrats vote that way because they view the "cool people" do (Hollywood, the uber rich, Buffett who practices nothing he preaches, etc). Educate yourself, don't follow.

Now to the home work...
Research the charitable givings of those running for President and Vice-President. You will find that the McCains have given over 25% to charities yearly, Obama (the man that wants US ALL to help the world) less than 2%, Biden also less than 2%.

I've always thought people put their money where their mouth is, and that is who they really are.

I'd give the money. No one should have to go without food... ever.

Would walk away from the whole tricky mess and go see a movie about nature.

Ugh. I think I would do it too.

Who are we to judge the crackhead about their mistakes when we are just as guilty.

I could never live knowing that I prevented someone from their habit for one day, while letting kids go hungry. I would most definetly give the money. No question.

Yes. As so many others have written, no one should go hungry, even if it means giving a crackhead money. What he does with it is his/her business.

That depends. Is the person who would use it to buy crack IN the hungry family? If so, then no.

Yes. The crack addict will most assuredly find a way to get the crack anyway, but the family may not find a way to get food.

Yes. Without thinking about it.

Yes. Absolutely. We're talking about human lives here...nothing is more valuable. No prejudice against those addicted to drugs should block our absolute obligations to other humans who are in need. Its not even a hard question, on those terms.

You're going to get all Paul Harvey on us after we comment and say, "And the name of that hungry family was Manson." But on the stated conditions, yes, I'd give the money.

Yes, I would donate the money. Because the good that would come of feeding the hungry family would be very obvious and you really never what will happen if you are generous to the crack addict. They might buy crack with your money but after that who knows. Kindness and generosity and compassion are often redemptive whereas ignoring and neglecting people seldom is...

Short answer? I would.

I would. Children should never go hungry. The good from that deed outweighs any bad people might see in supporting a druggie. And, at the risk of sounding callous, a crack head would get the money anyway. Might as well help evolution on its inevitable path of taking that person out of the gene pool in a early demise.

In a heartbeat.

Yes. The crackhead doesn't HAVE to buy the crack. Besides, who knows what kind of genetically altered food product the family will buy? It's about the gift.

Absolutely.
I can't imagine starving a child because some crackhead wants to kill himself.

Yes, I think so. Anyway I could help a family in need feels right to me.

I would give the hungry family food instead of money and not give crackie anything.

Absolutely. You get to choose whether to be charitable or not, and they get to choose how they use the money. You do your part. That's all you can do.

You'd have to. Children should not starve.

I work as a court reporter in the District Court. I see a lot of crack heads as you call them. My money would go first to a family, but unlike some, I see crack heads as people too. I don't like drug users in our society but I do sit in a courtroom everyday where the addicts cry for their families and mostly for themselves. It's hard not to feel for another human's strife no matter where you find it.

Without a doubt I would rather give a hand to a struggling family than a struggling addict; but your question requires it both ways, so of course I'd open my wallet.

I love good families, but I also recognize many who are addicts are mentally ill and have come from backgrounds most of us don't want to hear about.

Don't look at all people as though they have chosen their destiny.

Absolutely. I've been a social worker and have worked with both drug addicts and hungry children. Absolutely. Either way, it's alleviating pain. It might not benefit the addict in the long run, but will definitely benefit the kiddos.

Assuming the crack head is an adult, capable of making his/her own decisions, then yes. If not, wow that gets a lot tougher.

I would give the money. Maybe the people who you thought would buy crack would not this time. Even if they did buy crack, it would be worth it to help the family who really needed the money.

No. I can find a place to donate my money where it will do good without compromise.

Yes, I'd do it.

Yes.

Yes, harming one person who is self-harming themselves mainly by choice is... justified.. if it means helping out a family.

I would give the money. The crack user will find a way to use the crack anyway, with or without me. If I can help feed someone who has no other means, I will do it.

I wouldn't give money to the poor family nor would I give a tweeker crack.

People need to be held responsible for their own family and their own well being.

You bet I would.

OBAMA 08!!!

I would give the money. While the crack addict would buy crack - you open the door for the family for hope. Once they get back on their feet, I would hope, that they would be more likely to donate to others.

I would donate the money. It would bug me knowing that the other person would be using the money to buy and do dangerous, stupid drugs, but if it would mean that the desperate family could feed their children, that's worth it a million times over. I hate the thought of children suffering, and constant hunger is something no child should ever have to endure.

Of course I would.

And once you give money, or anything else for that matter, it's no longer yours - you don't control it, you don't control how it's spent. You can't place conditions on it, and anyone who thinks that they can or should really needs to get a reality check.

As for this whole "I'd invite them around to my place and make them dinner!" bit - why? Why should people be denied the simple dignity of being able to at least control their own meal? You can have them over and treat them as kings as much as you want, but all you're doing is taunting them by placing these bizarre conditions on your charity. By all means, give them a bag of groceries or whatever, but to force them into a quite intimate environment for your own ego is just wrong.

PS: The crackhead is more likely to kill without the crack.
Drugs will always be around. What's the point in trying to fight it? This world will never be perfect, but I'll be damned if I'm going to knowingly let a child starve.

If this is an option, I'd take said money and buy food and give that to the hungry family.

If that is not an option, then yes I would give them money, but I would also find them a local food bank.

I'd give the money to both...it's high (pardon the pun) time we treat drug addictions as a medical problem rather than a social problem.
Hunger sucks but so does being addicted to highly addictive drug.

I would absolutely give the money to the hungry family.

And hopefully, that money given to the crackhead would buy them the last hit they'll ever take.

yes i would. but forget this stuff the debate is on!

OBAMA

I would totally help that family feed their children, even if it meant I'd have to give the same amount of money to a crackhead. If he od's before he reproduces, we all win. Right?

I truly believe that the important point is person A's giving, not what persons B (the food) and C (the crack) do with what's given. Absolutely I would give and try to let go of the ultimate result of what's given. I think the question also could be are you giving with a good motive or an expectation of control over the gift?

Absolutely, feed the family. Thus, feed the crackhead.

Now I will turn back and watch the ridiculous Sarah Palin continue to 'debate',whilst I mend my bleeding heart.

Yes. I'm sorry that 'yes' is not an automatic answer for more people. It makes me sad.

The crack only hurts the person doing it. The food will help the family. The person who wants the crack will probably get it no matter what, if they are a true "crackhead" they will find a way. So.... yes, I would

I'd give the money. But you specifically noted that the crack user was someone you knew. I would then get to know them a lot better, and do what ever I could to help them. With help, hopefully the crack user will be in a position to make the same decision in the future.

In a heartbeat. The people who will use it on crack are not addicts because you gave them money. They were addicts long before you met. They're going to find a way no matter what. In fact, you'll probably be helping them to eat as well that day and maybe even not have to turn a trick that night to pay for their drugs. What about the homeless guy alcoholic begging on the street? Will I not give because he'll spend it on alcohol? He'll get alcohol no matter what. Extra cash means food and maybe a rooming house for the night. I work with addicts. Anybody who says anything different knows nothing about addictions or poverty. Period.

Wow, is that ever a tough question and I'm very afraid that I'm being "set up" and that there is going to be some inevitable comparison made tomorrow..."well, if you would do that, then...", but I'm going to jump in and go for it, anyway...

Yes, I would give the money. To both. Knowingly and willingly.

If someone needs food (especially children, a family) and you have the ability to help them, I believe that you should help them. No matter what. To deny that is to deny any kind of basic human decency.

The way that I justify giving to the crack addict as well is this:
If someone is THAT addicted that they are taking from others to satisfy their cravings, they are likely to be taking from others in other ways (burglary, robbery, etc.), anyway, so if you give them their cash directly, you might be saving someone else from being victimized.

If you can help someone blameless, you have an obligation to do it, even if it causes debatable harm to someone else that is NOT blameless.

I can't wait to see what you are able to deduce (ha! de-dooce) from this.

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: I'd try to find some way to make it less "win/lose." That could be something like changing the rules by giving the food directly rather than the money generally; might also be by engaging the crack user more redemptively. But even if there's nothing like that to be done, sure.

And 232 doesn't speak for Republicans. I think All readers here know that. That was so blatantly mean I think it might be a plant.

Good question...

Educate them! How does the saying go? "Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he will never go hungry again."

As far as the drug addict goes, let him hit his/her rock bottom. When they are ready, educate them.

I'd give food to the needy family instead.

I firmly believe that if you are going to give something, like money, away like that - than there should be no strings.

If it is a selfless act of kindness than it should be just that . . . selfless.

Duh. No. You circumvent the rules of the game and go to a food bank (or buy groceries at a store) and bring them actual food items. And then there's no money changing hands that will require giving money to the ones who will buy crack.

It's a pretty standard rule of giving that you give the items that are needed, NOT cash.

At my regular thursday volunteer work today at lunch on the serving line at our local food bank, I asked to a grown man (who could've been my dad/uncle), as I do to all 300 people that come through the line, "How're you today?" 98% of time time, they answer something like "fine," or "blessed," or "good; and you?"

This guy answered. "I'm hungry."

not in a sarcastic or mean or political way, but in a truly honest way as he eyed and picked up his plate of food (perhaps his only meal of the day). My.heart.broke.

Whether he was a crack addict, a mentally disabled man, a child who grew up with no food his whole life, or whatever else, it wasn't for me to judge.

This guy was HUNGRY. For FOOD. To LIVE. Get a job?! Fine; Tell Wal-Mart to call him on the local 7-11 payphone while he showers in the rain to get ready for work. I'll be sure to suggest that to him next week.

And the woman standing NEXT to me today in the serving line handing out pineapple chunks *was homeless herself,* deaf, disabled, living in a group home about to be kicked out while I stood there in my heels and makeup. Humbling? Um, slightly.

Feed the hungry people! Take my friggin money; I can't take it with me! I was blessed with a healthier brain/family/body; I'M WILLING TO SHARE MY BLESSINGS.

Everyone who is naive enough to say "WELL the crackhead is going to get it with or without me" is shifting responsibility and just deferring that THEY would be the ones fueling that single hit of addiction that could result in the DEATH of those children they just "selflessly" fed with their donation.

By saying ADDICTS ARE ADDICTS, THE END just makes you feel okay about giving them that ability to keep on wasting your money THAT YOU "DONATED" and deferring the responsibility of this rather linear scenario.

The crackhead is going to find a fix either way. Why make an innocent family suffer?

Yes

No.

Donate my time in soup kitchens, half-way homes and other programs to help hungry families and crack heads? Yes. Fork over money to be used however the family and crack head see fit? No.

Money does not fix problems. Money is a band-aid.

BTW, what's the catch?

A few days ago I asked my 12-year-old son and 14-year-old daughter what they would do if they saw a poor-looking family (mom, dad, baby) at Target and the father was stealing baby formula.
My daughter said she would call a friend and them what she saw, but she would not tell any authority.
My son said he would offer to pay for the formula.
My daughter's answer did not surprise me--typical teenager with a cell phone. My son, who NEVER has any money, was able to see outside of the lines---and speak to what SHOULD happen. If he had it--it was theirs!

Yes. You can't punish the family for what the crack addict is doing.

Yes, I'd give it. The crackhead will find money somehow anyway to feed the crack habit, so it's not like the end result there will be any different. But the hungry family might actually be helped.

This is why I give people granola bars. And donate to charities I trust, which can include both crack rehab and foodbanks.

Also, whoever said crackheads only hurt themselves is incorrect on many counts, none of which I'll elaborate upon :)

Not the straightforward answer you're looking for, I know. Sorry!

In the short term, yes, I would give the money to get the hungry family past their desperate period.

Now, I wouldn't regularly, repeatedly hand over money to the hungry family and the crack addict. In the long term, the family would be better served by an investment, "teach a man to fish"-style, whether in terms of finding them better jobs or education or something, so that they weren't dependent.

Re "he'll get crack anyway": A crack addict's desperation for crack is not greater than a healthy family's desperation for food. "He'll get it anyway" applies to the family, too - people will steal before they starve, and, in this country, the poor suffer more from obesity than malnutrition. (Our ancestors would never have believed such a world was possible, where the poor were fatter than the rich.) That said, I don't want people to have to be scared about where their next meal is coming from, whether they starve or not.

I just think, long term, you shouldn't give people counter-incentives to improving their lives, whether they are families or crack addicts or crack-addicted families. There are a lot of ways to be smart about charity, to make it constructive, instead of just turning it into a means of keeping people dependent.

Excellent way of watering down such issues as welfare, taxes, this massive bailout.........

Economists have stated this before.

Example: This curent mess on Wall Street. Which is more important, Punishing Wall Street or backstopping this potential economic nightmare?

Yes.

I've written some three paragraphs about this trying to explain why, but previous commenters have said it well: giving and kindness justify themselves. And addicts are so good at sustaining their addictions that my money is one score among many, many others.

An aside to those who have been to NA meetings: Did you ever hear an addict say that they quit using because it just got too expensive? Yeah...

Without hesitation.

Oooh, this is so Book of Questions.

Yes. I would.

I wouldn't donate money. I'd buy them groceries.

No, it's a stupid condition.

I still have free CHOICE in this world (so far) and would not choose to make a donation under those conditions.

There is nothing stopping me from giving food/money to the needy family under my own terms.

Sounds like the welfare system to me.

Dude, what a stupid question. Seriously.

Teach the dad or mom a skill and get them a freakin' job instead of just pouring money at them.

Well, aren't you the clever one!

Yes, I would give to the hungry family...and why? Because it's the right thing to do. Period.