yes. you help those you can, you can't do anything else about the others.

I hope the asshole who posted #19 never has to rely on a stranger's generocity to eat.

The last administration decided that it was up to churches to provide for the poor instead of creating policies to ensure that hard working americans have jobs and health care - without either a family is likely to end up in poverty and need help providing food. So far, my taxes have gone to feed a war and bailout wall street.

I would donate.

Okay, this seemed simple at first. My first inclination would be the following: Totally. The crackhead will get crack no matter what and the family needs the money.

On second thought, if the family will use the money wisely then you should give it. I've got some family members who are always desperate and this becomes a bottomless pit. They, like the crackheads, use the money up in seconds, wasting it on luxury items and need more almost immediately. So what I would do is give the crackhead money, and then buy food and clothes to help the family. And also maybe help put them on the right path if they are open to it. Why would I not buy food and clothes for the crackhead? Because crackheads will sell their food and clothes for crack, so it's really useless.

Complicated answer. That's what I get for being a Democrat. Damn, I wish I could see things in black and white.

Yep. I get a lot of the arguments, but yep. I can't stand hungry children.

xo

b.

I would quadruple my donation after befriending Sarah Palin.

This is a win-win situation; of course I would do it. The truth of the matter is, those who use crack are going to find a way to do it regardless. They will rob, assault, and possibly murder anyone who stands in their way. By providing the money to them, your doing the same as providing clean needles to IV users.

no. I'd go buy them food. I have to answer this question practically on a daily basis. NYC has a large homeless population. I often buy food for people instead of just giving money.

Yep. In some ways I assume that my charitable donations average out to this: 50% good, 50% mismanagement in some form. Does it really matter if it's someone's coke habit or someone else's greed and fraud in managing a charity? I assume that happens. Better to at least get the 50% good.

But I can see why some people would choose otherwise too.

How about I donate a shitload of food to the hungry family, and an equivalent shitload of food to the crackheads. Who could probably also use a healthy meal.

Only if the crackhead didn't have kids.

But we're probably not supposed to know right? So yeah - I'd give them both the money, because I'd rather go with the certainty that a starving kid is eating, then the certainty that a starving kid isn't eating because something else MIGHT be happening (i.e. a crackhead MAY continue to neglect a child0.

I guess I turned it into a probability problem, but only because I care so little whether a crackhead is still a crackhead compared to whether a starving kid can eat or not.

A gift is a gift. If you give it with strings attached it reflects your control issues. Though it does sound like an unfortunate predicament. Maybe you could just give them both a super healthy gift basket. The crack addict could use some good protein as much as the kids in the good family.

Wow.

I vote Reavolution The (one that thinks he/she is) the Smartest Person in the Room!

Long-time reader, first time to comment.

I think it's once again a slap in the face to readers (apparently some naive readers) to ask such a question when YOU know it's nothing but political. I read about half the comments and was astounded that some people were so freely answering this loaded question as if they had no clue what the real point of it was. And sadly enough, I don't think some of them did/do.

I agree with the one person (sorry didn't get your name) who said that it's really NOT cool to treat people like this with your political agenda.Because you don't want to create another huge stir, you ask a question like this? Then innocent people who don't get your political bullshit innuendos answer and then you can use those answers to say "ha - you WOULD do this or that". So not dooce-like.

Poor, poor people - wake up and smell the putrid scent of shit that is circling this dead horse and stop responding to these questions. It'll just save you from looking like a dumbass.

And don't tell me I don't have the right to respond in this way - or that I can go somewhere else, or read another blog, or any of those Heather-is-God-don't-bash-our-Heather remarks. I'll read/say/express what I want cuz this IS America, ya know. There - that was my patriotic/political comment for the day.

I always loved your blog and maybe once this election is over, I can return to reading it for enjoyment as opposed to seeing how else you're going to offend people.

But for now though - my ending comment is gonna be (as I grab my crotch) CHEW ON THIS!! At least that would be my closing comment if I had a penis, just cuz I think it'd be cool and all.

Yes, I would probably give the money though I would much rather have the option of providing food (and #232, if there is any justice in the world, you will one day find yourself in need of government assistance).

Now, if the question you asked was really about the bailout, I think it's a poor comparison. You can't compare "wall street" to a crackhead. A crackhead is, let's not forget, a human being.

yes.

Damn... Leta's getting demanding these days, isn't she!

Really? Now, The Welfare Debate? Palin did well, so now you must come at it from a different angle? I just can't take it anymore. I used to love your blog, but I think I'm going to have to come back after the election.

Very clever question, well asked. I'm just amazed at how many didn't get the analogy.
To answer your question, I would probably give the money if it went directly to the children that were hungry, not the parents that couldn't manage their money. I would be ok with the money going to the addict if they were honest about it upfront and didn't try play games with my ability to see through their games.

Nice to see how many people here are so generous and would lean toward giving money to addicts rather than let someone starve. I think that is great. What is most interesting to me is that even with the people who want to help the hungry, there is a lot of difference. Multiply that by the millions of people in this country and no wonder we can't come to agreement on most things.

Best joke all night: "Palin did so well" Good one. Palin just managed to keep her head above water. But don't take my word for it. Look at the polls tomorrow.

Why don't you blog what you know about - Dog shit! Liberal trash!

Handing over money to the needy and the addict is too easy. Rather than money, invest in a relationship with both. Invite them into your home for a meal. Take them grocery shopping personally and puchase the items. Go into their world for a day and see the ugly side of life. That is when change will begin. When you choose to have compassion on the person and get emotionally involved you will have contributed more than money can purchase.

Yes.

Yes. I'm not going to deny someone food because of someone else's addiction.

Without a doubt.

Obama sucks! So do you!

Who cares if it's a loaded question? If people are smart enough to recognize that, good for them. If people just want to take it at face value, as I did, since I don't live in the USA, then good for us.

Whichever way you look at it, you didn't have to insult Heather about it, #326. If you don't like the question, then don't bother to type an answer. People can choose to answer it in a political or literal way, whichever way they see fit, and that doesn't make them any less or any more intelligent then you are.

Yes, I give money to my sister-in-law knowing exactly what this would be used for, though she fabricates great stories to explain why she needs the cash NOW....we know better.

I'd buy groceries for both families and not give either money.

one more thought-- why do you present this issue as if federal welfare is the only way that families can get food or other assistance? what about charities specifically geared towards these issues who sidestep the crackheads? why on earth do people just LOVE giving their money to the government and letting them decide what to do with it?

and who do you think, between the democrats and the republicans, gives far and away the vast majority of money to charitable organizations, anyway? not your party, dooce.

here's something for you to chew on: of the millions joe biden made last year, how much did he donate to charity?

three thousand dollars.

I absolutely would and I would turn in the SOB who was going to buy crack with it.

both my husband and I instantly said yes, but I'm always looking for the reality in hypothetical situations, and I can't see how this one leads to anything realistic. if you can, enlighten me.

By the way, I really like the photos of the birches with yellow leaves this week.

No. I had to think about this for a while as instinctively I want to say yes. But there is more to helping than just giving money and saying "here". Instead, I would donate my time and serve at a shelter, donate my gently used clothes and toys to the Womens Shelter, volunteer at a drug rehab clinic, and finally volunteer to help kids in inner-city schools as they would be the most at risk for becoming hungry or crack addicts. The benefits of this outweigh the time spent and surpass any effects the money would have had. Besides, it teaches future generations of children, my own and those I help, the importance of charity and that kindness has no monetary value.

Yes, but the crackhead is paying the dealer who is paying the smuggler who is paying the cartel who is paying the destitute Colombian farmer to grow the cocaine, and the farmer has to feed his kids somehow.
MORAL AMBIGUITY, PWNED.

Nope. I'd pitch in with meal cooking and babysitting and what-not and with the needy folks. And maybe at the McCracks too. But if $ spent @ needy meant $ spent on crack, I'd avoid the sitch.

Yes. Although it's an imperfect solution, but I'd do it, in a heartbeat.

It would depend on if the crackheads had children which would then either be neglected or put in some sort of danger. If so, no. If not - yes.

anita, you aren't thinking this through. the person buying crack could be the best parent on earth, the person getting food might subsequently rape the child with the chicken bone and corn cob after finishing the meal, then kill said child.

What would the people do with the crack once they've purchased it? 'Cause if they plan on blowing it into the wind, I don't see the dilemma.

The one thing I didn't see in these replies is that even the crack addict is still a human being. We are all on our own journeys in this world and it not only takes however long it takes but it takes all the mistakes and bad experiences to find your way.

It's just not my job to stand in judgment of someone else's life. All I have control over are my actions and the intentions behind them.

I'd give the money because my intention in that would be to help ALL the humans involved. How can I know if that gift would or would not impact the crack addict just as powerfully as it would impact the hungry family? We just don't get to decide how others live their lives, only what we're willing to do with our own personal intentions.

Yup. I'd give the money. In fact, I'd probably give a crack addict 20 bucks without the hungry children factor, because even though I've never tried crack, I know what addiction feels like, and the pain that accompanies it.

Folks are waaaaay to judgmental about addiction. Here's hoping they never experience the sort of trauma or mental illness that cause a lot of good people to become addicts.

I would give the hungry children my left arm if they needed it.

It's kind of a loaded question. Either option would be a destructive option. I wish I could say yes, but my brain keeps saying no.

I recommend the book, Who Really Cares?, by Arthur Brooks.

His study found that people who identify themselves as conservatives donate MORE money to charity and donate MORE OFTEN than people who identify themselves as liberals! They also give a higher % of their income. The same held true for volunteering time and giving blood.

So, my answer is, of course not.

However, I'd take that family into the nearest market and let them buy what they needed to their heart's content. (Yes, I'm conservative and yes, I've actually done this multiple times before).

What I don't want/need is anyone telling me I HAVE to give $ to the afore mentioned family or crackhead.

My money, my choice.

Yes. I would donate the money to both. However, to the addict I would also supply access to treatment, be it through information, appointments at several centers, the number for the wait list, or a reservation at a private center. Treatment doesn't work unless the addict really wants help. Who knows? Your donation could make that a reality. (It might not, but that's where free will comes in.)

And you know the money that goes to the family will definitely be helping the kids.

You would be doing a good thing with the donations, how they are ultimately used is beyond your control.

Yes.

Wow, that's a couple of angry conservatives. Specifically to #326 Melissa, you shouldn't let the mere implication of a political discussion infuriate you so much.

I guess you have a right to post as much as anyone (though we're all on Heather's bandwidth here), but your case falls flat -- saying it's "NOT cool to treat people like this with your political agenda" is a bit hard to take when the comments for political posts here have been open and unedited. When did discussing politics become so inherently offensive?

My husband and I listen to and read conservative media often -- it keeps us aware of why we disagree and alerts us to when the other side may have a point (e.g., the poster who mentioned that conservatives give more than liberals doesn't make me want to switch sides--not even close--but it does make me want to give more).

If you're confident in your beliefs, hearing the other side isn't offensive -- it's reassuring.

Is this political?

Yup - I'd do it. It would be worth it...being hungry is not those kids' choice but taking crack probably is those peoples' choice.

Yes. A druggie will find drugs if they need them no matter what. They will sell their own grandmother most of the time, I know this because my best friends were druggies. Giving a family money to feed their children is something I would be proud to do, giving money to a druggie just might save their life too, you never know what will happen the next time they steal or barder for drugs. And you never know, that might be the one time the choose to use the money to help themselves instead of hurt themselves.

While I do feel that the question does over simplify a very complex situation, I would have to say yes.
I would definitely feel more comfortable with a donation rather than a tax, but I have also benefited from social programs in the past.

The real problem here is not what the government should or should not be doing, it is the fact that America itself has turned into an unmanageable system. There is nothing to forage in a cement wasteland, and, thanks to the government's desire for cheap imports of all kinds, there are no farmers to give to the community. There is no such thing as community or compassion in a world where everyone is working for an abstract purpose (money) in order to achieve an abstract goal (success, social position). We are no longer meeting our needs and enjoying the rest of life, we are putting ourselves into artificial environments and shutting ourselves away from life as we have always known it. I believe this leads to a disconnection from meaning and from other human beings. There is a large percentage of this country living very well, while the rest are struggling to pay their bills and eat more than just refined carbs everyday. But that large percentage that has plenty REFUSES to go without for the good of the many. Why do they buy more expensive things than everyone else? Simply because they can. Do they need most of what they buy? No. In fact, none of us NEED most of what we buy. I wonder if that hungry family has cable television. You may scoff, but I have seen that exact situation.
If those taxes did not exist, I believe that most of the wealthy of America would not give.

Also, I have to wonder if the majority of your readers have ever known drug users. Having had friends and family members that have battled drug addiction, it astonishes me that people can be so cold towards other human beings. Maybe those of you who have problems with depression can understand that sometimes there is NO choice in a situation. Not because the choice does not exist, but because no matter how you try there is no way to reach it. It does not make them bad people.
It does not make them worthless people.
It makes them hopeless people.

Which is really at the heart of so much of this current election. How many of us have lost hope to the point that it just does not matter anymore?

Heather, to me it's all about choices. The family has free will and would use the money to feed their children. The crack addict has free will and will use the money I have donated or any money to buy crack. The choice is out of my hands when I use my free will to donate money to the deserving family.

I'd probably do it because the people really need to feed their children and the drug addicts would find a way to buy crack anyway and at least this way they're not hurting anyone to get the money, I suppose.

And I would try to get the crack addicts some help but I realise they have to WANT the help and WANT to stop doing drugs for that to work.

What's your answer Heather?

No. I would find a different way to help the first family. There are a million solutions to this. Can't give them money for food without giving someone else money for crack? Fine, then I'd give the first family food instead of money for it. Or I'd pay their phone bill to free up that money so they could use it for food themselves. I could go on and on.

that's an easy answer for me - i would give the money. i cannot condemn a hungry family because of someone's addiction, and really - i'm not in a place to judge someone's addiction because i have my own (sugar, tv - i know, not as horrendous as crack, but i manage a chronic illness (not diabetes) that reacts really badly to sugar). of course, i'm one of those save the world types and when i have it will give money to organizations that provide health and food relief to palestinians in gaza.

Yes.

yep.

Okay Heather. Great debate. I answered just a few minutes ago that I would give the money to both. Then I asked my husband what he would do and he wouldn't give money to either. Then I read some more of the responses. Very interesting.
As an aside. I live in Canada and am a socialist. Not all Canadians are socialists (a good deal are).
I am thinking that you are going to bring up something about the welfare system when you get around to telling us why you posed this question.
I would still give the money but I do understand all sides of the debate. It's a difficult decision to make and actually a more difficult question to pose. Thankfully, I live in a free country. I hope that yours becomes free again. Kudos!

yeah, i'd give the money. The crackhead might o'd thereby alleviating the world of some druggies and hopefully soon only needy people will be left to receive the money. How's that for twisted logic/justice?

Ideally . . . I would give all the money to the hungry people and say tough tooties to the crackheads.

Oh. Wait. That wasn't an option, was it?

Hmmm. I dunno. I don't want the children to go hungry by any means. But . . . I really cannot bring myself to give money to a crackhead either.

Can I just deny them both then sneak some money in the backdoor to the hungry family? No one has to know...

I guess I won't.I guess there's a way to get around that situation :p

I fedex the food over. LOL

I would have the hungry family eat the crackhead.

I'd donate the money. The family needs it. I can give it to them. I can offer a peice of advice to the person that would buy the crack but...people have to make their own choices.

Yes, there is the argument that I should offer a job, support, etc. But what if I don't have the means to do so? What if the only thing I *can* do for that family is provide them for a meal tonight? Well, then I have given them one night that they don't have to worry.

Whoa. I just went back and read some of the comments. People, people, people. First of all, this is Heather's blog and if you're not enjoying it you can come back tomorrow and see what she has to say then. It's not all that difficult. Yes, you have the right to read and say what you want, but it appears to me that you are the ones getting frustrated when you do that, so save yourself the trouble if you're just going to be blowing steam out of your ears when you're done.

I have two things to add: 1. Take the question at face value and answer it. We will all have different answers because hunger and addiction are two extremely complex issues and no two cases are the same. The country's economics are very complex. The welfare system is very complex. Just answer the question as it was laid out.

2. #358, Robyn. Exactly what millions are you referring to that Joe Biden made? Both Biden and Palin are the poorest ever Vice Presidential nominees to run. Notice I said BIDEN AND PALIN. Yes, both. They may not be poor by our standards, but they certainly aren't making millions. So let's just not bring up charitable contributions given that Palin's tax data isn't available due to "lurking problems."

Yes.

I am someone who has needed to ask for food.

I have been dehumanized by agencies requiring impossible proof. I have been lifted up by people who simply trust my request and provide straightforward help.

I have seen funding and programs cut because organizations conclude that the majority of those served are cheats. I have seen the good of people who know that it is better to include those who don't need than to exclude those who do.

I have heard bystanders judge unfavorably the motives and true needs of people receive assistance. I have heard leaders counsel that if a person asks for money specifically for food one must give the person money if one is able.

yes. i would give the money. a baby needs to eat.

i would also check in at my blog for another family who really needs some support for a new baby - no crack required. promise!

I would have absolutely no problem giving the money to both the family in need or the drug addict. You weren't asking if you should sponsor both for life. I figure that if someone is asking for help and I can oblige, why not? Of course I'm not going to solve a lifetime of problems, but if you can just lift someone up for a moment, then do so.

I can't judge an addict any more than I can judge a starving family. They both are in their situations because sometimes we make bad choices. Sometimes we make great choices but life throws you for a loop and you end up in a place you never thought you'd be in.

I've made judgments of situations in the past, only to be taught better. Learned in painful, personal ways. You never know, until you know...

Yes!

Give 'em the money.

You are talking about the government bailout of Wall Street, right?

OK, well seems to me that everyone in Congress is talking about the $700m (crack), and not about the rehabilitation (banking reform) that should be a part of the solution.

Yes.

So you've been duscussing of you should you be in favor of a bailout of Wall Street Greed Monsters while helping all the regular people who got into a financial mess?

Seems to me that there is no choice ... see all the answers above. Yes, the world is not fair.

Biggest problem is, that everyone seems to think that their money is theirs. They own it. It belongs to them, they worked hard for it. They deserve it.

Tell you what: this world contains 80% of people that mostly work a whole lot harder than the 20% of people that live in the US and in Europe, but still own less than a tenth of the total property and money in the world. Is your money yours? No, you're just lucky someone gave it to you. Let's return the favor to people who really need it, and stop being so beligerant about it, demanding moral measures.

Your money is a gift to begin with. Makes life a whole lot more relaxed.

To answer 'yes' would admittedly be a quick fix and there are other ways of solving the problem, but if that were the only way of helping, I would still give the money to them... "the needs of the many" and that malarchy - but its a toughy, but a starving family is no joke and I've seen how horrible it can be for parents and children, who don't deserve to suffer, so I can confidently say 'yes'.

I'd give the money, definitely. The crack-user has chosen to use crack and has the option of choosing not to, the starving people are unable to chose to eat or not.

it's not the hungry family's fault that someone else has a drug habit.

I'd give them the money.

I think a more reasonable question would be:

If you were given the option to donate money to a desperate family to feed their children, but you had to donate the same amount of money to someone who would use it to buy crack AND additionally to someone else who would use it to get their nails done and pay for all of their text messages for the month AND to someone else who's in serious credit card debt from overspending...

would you do it?

Getting down to the heart of the matter: do you truly believe the ratio is one-to-one?

Yes

I would ask the parents of the hungry children to buy all of the canned goods they would need for one year in one day.

I would then ask the crack head to buy all of his/her crack, equal dollar amounts for each, that would be used in one year and again they would have to buy it in one day.

The next day I would give enough money to the hungry family to buy perisbables that they would need for an entire year.

After the crackhead has bought his/hers year supply of crack I would call the cops and turn him/her in.

Yes, I would.

The crack addict will get their fix even without your donation. But would the family be guaranteed food?

I'd donate.

I'm with a lot of people commenting who say they'd rather donate food, but I don't believe that's an option here. It's money, or nothing.

You can speculate as much as you want about the result of contributing toward a crack addict's habit (accidently killing the family whilst high, etc) but there's no way of knowing for certain, and I don't think it applies here either. It's simply weighing a good deed against a not so good deed.

The only times I've been hesitant to donate money of any kind is when I'm not completely certain of where that money is going. Maybe it's an ego thing, but I prefer seeing my goodwill in action firsthand. In this scenario, it's an absolute given that half of the money I donate, will go toward feeding a hungry family.

So, I would definitely give the money. Why must the hungry family be punished by the very system put in place to protect and nurture them?

Yes I would give the money if I had it.

The family as you said are desperate for the help and for them that gesture of kindness may well make a huge difference. The crack addict will more than likely show no real gratitude and it probably won't make that much of a difference in their life.

Definitely, the good outweighs that bad in this situation.

No. I'd direct the hungry family to the multiple government (welfare, foodstamps) and private charities (food banks, salvation army, ect.)

I would give the money.

This question made me think. I even read many of the other comments.
I am still flip-flopping over my answer.

Yes.

Heck, the crack craver isn't going to be able to buy that much
crack for the price of a decent family meal, so you're hardly doing the crack craver much harm. Besides, the crack craver could use it in theory to buy less harmful stuff if they wanted to, it's not like you were obliged to forcibly ingest the crack into their body.

I wouldn't underwrite suicide, no matter how it was packaged.

I would donate.

Nope. Pretty transparent game you are playing, but even beyond that, no. I would find other people to help without the downside.

Yes, the family who is hungry should not have to suffer further because of the person who would buy crack. You can't NOT help someone because of someone else who will take advantage. Its the old, "one person ruins it for everyone." This isn't grade school and you can't go to break time.

I want to be Obamabot's friend. I'm so sick of Democrats=Good Republicans=Bad. I believe in we have an effect on the environment. I believe in equal rights for gays and a woman's right to choose. Simply by virtue of being born here, we have the right to a free public education. That's unheard of in most of the rest of the world. Freedom is never free. Take responsibility for yourself and your choices, whether you're rich or poor. I decided on my career as an elementary teacher and I decided to marry another educator. I don't have a lot of money, but I never expect my government to take responsibility for the fact that we can't have all that we want. We live in the land of opportunity. If you can't make it here, you're just not trying hard enough.

I would just give them gift cards to grocery stores. They took crack off the shelves a while back so it should be fine.

No. My sister used to be on crack and it was awful!
There's no way I'd buy crack for anyone.
Instead I'd say No, then buy the family a gift card for a groc store. The end. After all it's my money, my choise. :op

Yes.

Yes, I would.

You don't know for sure that #2 would buy crack. And food is such a basic need. If I can meet it for someone, I must.

I'd donate the money to the grocery store itself in the name of the two families. They could only use it for food stuffs...otherwise it feels a bit like moral extortion. I got enough of my own karma without having to add to the rest of the world's pile-o-crap.

Heck yeah. I (mostly) happily pay taxes and try and focus on the good they do, too. And I'm not even a patriot.

I would. Should the children suffer because of a drug addict?

First, these "butterfly effect" scenarios assume the worst. How 'bout the family that got fed then has the wherewithal to help the crackhead?

Second point, we are one of the richest countries in the world. Do people really think we can't *afford* to stop the creation of one of the largest underclasses on the earth? The result of a "letting the pieces fall where they may" policy would be devestating, given that all other variables that affect life outcome are *not* equal in our country.

I would give the money.

I think that, if it's in my power to help at least one person who is hungry, alone, or naked, I have a duty as a fellow human to do so. The fact that this particular help comes with a "crack clause" doesn't make a huge difference to me.

Besides, if the crack family gets money to buy crack that day, that's one more day that they will be less tempted to steal to obtain crack funds... and hopefully one more day that my car stereo stays in my car, where it belongs...

I just loosely scanned the comments, and I think a few other people felt the same thing I did as soon as I read this ..

You just described welfare, which we all donate to, and seeing as how you wrote this right after the first of the month, something in your daily life must've prompted this?

I get what you're trying to say, but being "given the opportunity to donate some money" makes it sound like it's something you'd love to do but never get the chance to. My taxes do this already through the welfare system. I am "given the opportunity" to do good all the time through charity and "choose to do so" when I can afford it without it affecting my bottom line because I have a family to feed as well. To you and many others, I'm being selfish, but I work very hard for what I make and I like to choose where it goes. You are welcome to do with your money as you see fit and I will applaud you and say you are a great person for doing so.

Let me make this perfectly clear, if families in this country are hungry it's because of the choices of the people in charge of the family. I've seen and LIVED it first hand. My parents made less in a year than your website makes you in a month. Probably even a week. I remember filling out the forms for free lunch and for a family of 5, they made less than $8,000 per year (even in the 80's that was poor) and they still had the money to go to the bar. I never went hungry, neither did my brother or sister.

After I moved out and away, my brother and sister lived with my mom who did not work throughout most of the 90's. I would not give my mom money because I knew where it go. She had food stamps for the kids and Medicaid for their Healthcare. She chose not to work because it screwed with her benefits, she could have, but didn't. You want to speak of fair, how is that fair to the person who is working hard and paying their taxes? I helped in other ways. I sent them clothes. I brought them out to visit and took them on vacations. I showed them there was another way of life and if you work you can climb out of the hole no matter how deep into it you were when you started.

I am not rich, I wouldn't make enough to be considered in Obama's tax plan even if you doubled my husband's and my earnings, so why does this bother me? Because I believe with all my heart that this type of system keeps people from trying for anything better. It punishes good decisions and responsibilty and rewards failure. I believe the welfare system should exist as temporary help when people need it, not as a sole support system. My mom no longer has children she can use to abuse the system and she's stuck in a life that she made forself because of it. Because I love her, I do what I can to help her now, and she works as a hostess in a restaurant so she gets fed. I can't help but think that her life would be so much better if she'd had to make better decisions earlier in life rather than relying on the handout.

So, to answer your question, no. I would not donate the money. I would buy them food and if my gift was rejected because it's not money, then I would find someone else to share it with. You're question is naive Heather. You have lived a comfortable life because your parents made sacrifices for you. You won't be forced to care for them financially when they are older because of their decisions. Thank them for it.

In my opinion, the starving family and the crack head have the same amount of rights. Who are we to judge them? Who are we to decide their moral standing? HELP TO ALL is my motto, crack head or no.

Yes, I would give the money regardless. Its the right thing to do. If the crackhead decided to use it on crack that's their karma, not mine.

I say yes.

Yes.

Like stated before by many people, the crackhead can control what he purchases- or perhaps he can't because he's consumed with crack and has no control over it- but he did at one point in time, he made those decisions before.

But the family- maybe the parents screwed it up for the children, but the children have no choice, they have no out and it's not their fault if they don't have food.

Plus if a crackhead was standing in front of me, and a child standing in front of me starving to death - no choice. no yes or no question, just do it.

are you faced with this? :)

Yes, I would do it. It´s worth it.

Totally.

Assuming there are no other options (like getting them help, etc.), I'd give the money. If a crack addict gets a fix but we feed somebody who is starving, there's no question here to me - feed the family.

I would give to both. Some one already stated that the crack head would score in some way by what ever means. By giving money to the crack head, you keep someone from being robbed or hurt on that one day. Bonus, you also help out the family that truly needs it. But then again, I also think that a lot of our drug problems would be solved by legalizing all drugs. It's their body; let them do what they want with it.

Well, that's a tough one. I'm hoping you'll follow up with the why's and wherefore's of the question once we've answered?

I'd feed the kids. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, and hope for the best for the crackhead!

Of course I would.

First off, discussion outside the parameters of money doesn't really make sense here. The question is simple, if you had the opportunity to give money would you. I would. If the question was, if you had the opportunity to change these peoples lives for the better would you, it wouldn't really be much of a question (I hope. I mean I guess some jerks out there still wouldn't want to help). And why even bring Jesus into it?

yes...as long as I knew who the person addicted to crack was...then I would slap *intervention* on the crack persons ass.

No, I wouldn't give money or a gift card, because it would go to crack. If I were able I would cook for the children on an immediate basis. I would try to help the parents get help, but if they were not receptive to help, I would imagine that the children shouldn't stay in a household of crack addicts. I would worry about the children, becoming victims of child porn or prostitution.

Having said all of the above, if I actually "knew" any of the above I would become far too emotional and probably enable everyone, because I am a sucker that way.

Yes, I would. When I was little, a bum approached us on the street and asked my dad for spare change. He veerd us around the man and we kept going. I remember asking him why he didn't give the man the change I knew he had in his pocket. He said it was because the man would probably use the money to buy drugs or booze instead of food. To this day I remember thinking that my dad was wrong, that we should have helped him. I can't control what my donations are used for, and that's true of giving to bums on the street and to political campaigns and to breast cancer research. I have to give with good intentions and let the universe do it's thing.

#352- What's up with you?? In one comment, you're all "I'd only donate if I could give enough money to make sure the crackhead bought enough crack to OD", and then in your second comment, you're all "Don't insult Heather.". It just confuses me because in the first one, you portray yourself as a disgusting human being who has absolutely zero respect for the value of someone's life, and in the next one you seem like you might actually have a heart. Make up your mind chica!

Not only would I do it, I have done it. When I was in college I used to send money home to my mom (the crack addict in this scenario) in hopes that she would use a fair amount of it to feed my 3 siblings. She was far more inclined to take care of them when she was loaded and happy so the gamble typically paid off.

Hell no! Throwing good money away benefits no one. Help the hungry find jobs to feed their children and take care of their families, and guide crackheads to rehab. Money doesn't solve this problem.

We're talking about politics here, so I am amswering in that realm.

Answer is no.

Yes, the crackhead would find a way to get crack anyway.

Sure. Just because one would do something bad with it doesn't mean the other doesn't really need it.

When is making a donation ever this simple or black-and-white? I know it's a thought question, but what I'm thinking is -- "this is so unlikely to be the problem. The problem is that you are giving a woman money to feed her family, but her husband also needs money for his prescription pain drugs, which let him continue his physical and occupational rehab but to which he's probably just slightly addicted. And her daughter is 15 and a bitch, and you just know mom's going to send her to do the shopping, and she'll come back with skittles and junk food and cigarettes and a bottle of scotch that cost her twice as much as normal because she paid the junkie down the block to buy it for her. But the other three kids are angels who just need a chance in life, and mom is a super woman holding down two shitty jobs trying to make ends meet. Would you give that family the money?"

Personally I think that money is fucked and charity is fucked and compassion is fucked, but that without them everything would be even more fucked than it is. So -- give the money, don't give the money, it's more or less all the same. You will never be able to perfect the system, particularly not $200 at a time.

If you can find a print copy of it out there in Utah, Caryl Churchill's short play "The After Dinner Joke" is a great dissection of how charity never works out right, but is still the right thing to do.

Thanks for the chance to wail about the world's injustice! It is a great Friday-morning release, now I'm going to get some client work done and see if I can change the world, one website at a time.

Of course I would. But I'd hopefully not leave it at that. What both the hungry and the crack-addicted need is a long term solution. Start by feeding them, then try to help the get out of the hole they are in.

No, It's not our responsibility to fix people. There are enough opportunities in the world for people to fix themselves.

Couldn't you just bypass this by donating to a local food shelter? I think money should be invested in areas of social security rather than given through handouts.

... but ultimately, I suppose I would donate that money.

ideal = idea. oops!

Yes. Without a doubt. If people are going to buy crack, they are going to find a way to do it regardless. Those kids need to eat.

That said, if you are not comfortable with that. There are usually many resources (food pantries, etc) that you could refer the first family to in your area.

Yes, definitely. Oddly, this reminds me of a question I was once asked: Do you think the government should supply clean needles and condoms without question? I guess for me, saving lives is much more important than telling people how to live their lives.

Without hesitation

No.

But I would drive the hungry family to our local food bank where I DO donate money and food.

And I would drive the crack head to a rehab facility in the same area that my taxes help pay for.

One trip would save gas and cut my carbon footprint at the same time.

I think this is a better option for me.

In some ways, this is a more realistic scenario then it would seem at first reading. Say, you are willing to part with a large sum of money to ease the pressure on the credit markets but could only do so if you go through an institution that would pay $150 billion more to political crackheads. What do you do?

In our daily lives, too, choices are not so pure as we would like them to be. Many things come in a package (jobs, husbands, children) and it is hard to pick and choose the desired scenario.

Say you want to help the poor women and children in China but you could only do so by buying goods made in China (your consumer dollars could be your foreign aid), what would you do?

You give if are more against hunger than you are against drug use.

Yes, absolutely. We HAVE to help those in need, even if we know that half our efforts will be useless. That's what makes us human, isn't it?

Yes. Beyond a doubt. I would.

Why?

Not because I'm weak, or give in easily to causes, but because I'm brave enough to look at our world and see hope. It's damn easy to be a cynic and do nothing.

Yes.

I'm not prepared to starve a child because someone else is screwing up.

Nope. Just as the crackhead will find the means to buy his crack, the family who needs food will find a means of providing for themselves. Maybe they will have to break down & take a job they feel is below them but they will find a way if they know it will not be handed to them. The more we provide, the more dependant people become on others "helping" them.

It would be very interesting to also know the political affiliation of each poster. I was guessing those who said no would be republicans, then I noticed in post 300 that is indeed the case at least for one.

I would give the money. Now let me pose something else. If you were going to give a family $100.00 knowing that only $25 of it was actually going to buy food for the hungry children and the rest was going to spent on something else (maybe drugs, maybe alcohol, maybe something frivolous). Would you still give? My answer is yes because that is $40 worth of food those children did not have before.

There are many more scenarios to consider. If you gave a family $100 knowing they are going to spend it eating at Fast Food places instead of making those dollars stretch at the grocery store, would you still give? I would hope so.

I do understand teaching them a job so they can earn money. If I had to guess the folks saying that have never been hungry or feared not being able to feed a child the next day (I have). Teach them the job, it will take awhile for money to start coming in. In the mean time, feed the child who has no choice in this situation.

These attitudes are what is wrong with our country today, in my opinion.

No way. And I'm a hippy-dippy liberal.

I *would* give the money to a school lunch program or a soup kitchen or a community food pantry but I'd *rather* invest it in work training programs and public education. The whole "hand up" is better than a "hand out" idea.

Because even though I'm a hippy-dippy liberal, I see the world in terms other than black-and-white. Moderation is not the same as neutrality and it's in the middle where things actually get done in this country.

#438 Taco scares me. My money absolutely is my money.

#501 Mary, I appreciate your kind words, and you're right. Rich is a relative term and I am very happy with my little life and family.

I can appreciate everyone who would give out of the goodness of their hearts. But those that say "a gift is a gift and you have no say" and "there should be no strings attached" are, in my opinion, dead wrong. Assuming this is a donation and not taxes, then I should be able place all the strings I want on it.

If I am giving out of the goodness of my heart then I should be able to give it to someone/something that makes me feel good about my choice. Plain and simple. For some that's animal welfare, for others that's childrens charities, for still others it's research into a disease that has affected them personally. You speak of not passing judgement on the crack addict. At the same time, no one has the right to pass judgement on me if I refuse to donate to Heather's afore mentioned situation because I choose to give to a children's cancer hospital instead. Especially knowing there's a welfare system in this country that ensures food and, yes, healthcare, to anyone who truly needs it - and plenty who don't - as well as charities and food banks.

I agree with several before. I wouldn't give money to the family so they could buy food but I would give food to the family.

That is the stance I take for the people at the corner with the sign "will work for food....out of gas, stranded with kids, need formula, diapers etc.". I carry around "goody" bags in my car which contain bottled water, peanut butter crackers, beef jerky, grocery store gift certificates and a list of agencies that can help those that are in need and pass it out to those with the signs begging for money.

I have even offered to go buy food and or formula/diapers when they say they need it for their "family" or fill their car with gas so they can get to the next town in time for whatever their "reason" is; however, the majority of the time that is NOT what they wanted. It was just the ruse to get the money.

So.......no.

That crack addict could later be the parent trying to feed his/her children. Err on the side of feeding the family, for sure.

Yes.

No, I wouldn't. Is there an option of giving food to the poor family though?

Donate. Sadly enough, it's probably more difficult for a poor family to find food than an addict to find crack.

This is a metaphor for the bailout, isn't it?

Isn't there a way to make sure that the people that need food actually get food and not drugs? Isn't that what food stamps are for? Or government cheese?

Instead of throwing up our hands and saying, "Well, I have to supply both their needs" there should be a way that we can provide programs that solve the problem, not just treat the symptoms.

Girlranting - I only respond to you because you are such an ignorant ass. In the very post before mine, you speak of hoping the crack addict ODs. And then you have the audacity to say something to me for speaking my mind and telling Heather I don't agree with what she's doing???? At least I didn't wish death upon her - you raving lunatic.

And you're not even a US citizen so you're opinion on what I have to say means about as much to me as your dumbass worship of a blogger you read everyday. I only insulted her (if you want to call it that) because I think that's what she does everytime she posts a blog on politics and sucks ignorant (not stupid - there IS a difference) people in to say what she wants to hear.

My comment on this wasn't even political, if anybody got that. I was making a comment about how I think it's ridiculous to keep being condescending to faithful readers who apparently think your word is the Gospel...

Could you buy them both food instead, with the money? The crackhead could probably use a hot meal, too.

Or is this a no-substitutions hypothetical?

in short -- yes.

we are all dying to know why you ask. does this have anything to do with that Oprah this week where the whole family is addicted to crack together?

Nope. But I would happily donate food to them (or a food pantry).

Yes, I would. Because a family in need is a family in need. But also, a crack head will find their fix, no matter what. And maybe if I paid for it, they won't steal from some innocent person or do something to harm themselves to get it.

it's kind of a win-win.

hehehe... tricky!

After reading the first page of comments, I wondered if anyone got what you were trying to do!

I'm glad to see that I am not the only one who would work with the desperate family to teach them how to support themselves instead of just handing them money.

Next question?? :o)

You have this type of dilemma any time you give money to the guy on the street corner with the sign saying he's a disabled vet, give him money. I think you do the right thing, you give. After that, it's between the person and God. However, I'd probably give a lecture about your brain on drugs to the crack smoker....

It's a question we face everyday at our church. The simple answer is you never give cash...if they need food you give just that...food to both.

I would donate the money. I think that refusing to give a donation because you want to "teach a family to fish" is a bit short-sighted. A good number of people who do need to rely on donations or social services to survive, whether that be food or $$, do have a job or even several jobs. They're called the working poor.

Sure, there are always going to be people who abuse the system that provides donations or social services but the behaviour of this small group of people won't ever stop me from living up to what I believe is my obligation to help in whatever way I can.

Interesting comments from those who said No and that they'd donate food not money: What if the question where would you still help a starving family(for what ever it is they need dontation of money, donation of food, giving them a job, free child care or whatever)if you also had to help support a crack addict's habit?