Free Lunch

[BlancoNino]

It all adds up.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
It all adds up.

Maybe it does. I'll work an extra 25 minutes this year to cover it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Because a lot of our allies don't have much of a military, so we need a big one. I fear where our country would be if we didn't spend as much on defense and military seeing as so much of the world hates us.

Two points:

1) You continue to avoid the question of why it is reasonable and necessary to spend more than the rest of the world combined. Are you suggesting that there is no waste by the Pentagon, that the only way to have a world-class military is to make it a bottomless pit for spending? If so, how is it that other countries' militaries pose any threat to us since their funding is proportionally a pittance compared to ours?

2) Why does so much of the world "hate" us? Perhaps if the U.S. wasn't such a meddling bully, the rest of the world wouldn't "hate" us so. Think of all the productive ways we could use, say 30% of our military budget, if we worked to get along with the world and didn't need to worry quite so much about them hating us.

Bump to jog BlancoNino's memory.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Bowfinger, I don't think we need to downsize our military at all.

Obviously not. I'm not sure we need to downsize it either. I do believe we need to manage it more effectively, and perhaps need to re-scope its mission. Do you honestly believe that every one of the hundreds of billions we spend on "defense" materially improves the security of the United States? Do you not concede any waste? You have far more faith in big government than I do.

Did the cold war end when the military was downsized during the Carter administration?

No, it ended when the Soviet Union collapsed, in part due to excessive military spending. I'm concerned we're headed down the same path.

Do you think Radical Muslim terrorists will hestitate to attack us if we dramatically downsize our military?

How are the two connected? We don't need a massive military to fight terrorist groups. Terrorists are generally fought with small, specialized forces, not massive armies. Look at how few troops we sent into Afghanistan, more than enough according to the Bush camp. The only reason we still need a massive military is for occupying other countries, a practice that only fuels the hatred you use to justify more military spending. I suggest we break the vicious circle before we bankrupt ourselves.

The rest of the world doesn't hate us because of our military.

Perhaps not, but they do because of the way we meddle in the internal affairs of other countries, including our use of the military in places like Iraq.

Another bump to jog BlancoNino's memory.

 

[SparkyJJO]

hehe it isn't free lunch - your taxes pay for it

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
hehe it isn't free lunch - your taxes pay for it

That's an amazing and unique insight. Thank you.

Hmmmmm food for children or more death and destruction delivered upon the world....
damn thats a difficult choice.

 

[1prophet]

Why is everyone so hostile to zendari and BlancoNino?

Perhaps their compassionate conservatism comes from the teachings of the great man who wrote this, and who's other works most public schools embrace as gospel, and many so called christians have mixed into their religion.



The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
What the hell are you guys talking about?

HISTORY LESSON: SCHOOLS FUNCTIONED WITHOUT FREE LUNCH BEFORE AND EDUCATION WAS EVEN HIGHER AT THE TIME!

Question: Why should my tax dollars be spent for parents who have children when they can't afford to feed them? How is that my fault?

Question: If these kids are 5 years old at school, they were obviously fed up until then, so why can the parents suddenly not afford to feed them? Oh well, with that extra money in their parents pocket, they can go by some more booze and watch hours of mindless cable television.

We almost forgot about you .. what was your name.. Riprorin??

You really are just an extremist jerk.. God agrees with you and your love for his children

..and we should create incentives for people to pop out babies left and right? There should be way that only those of you who voted "Yes" should pay a tax surcharge to fund this. Then we'll see how many of you will vote "Yes."


If anything they should only have free lunch for kids whose parents really are working (or can't work due to disability) and are still below the poverty line by giving these families vouchers. People in that situation should then be told that if they have another kid, they lose all such benefits. That way they will have another kid if and when they can afford do so off the government's teat.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Yep.....all working poor parents are alcholics and couch potatoes. You're a real piece of work!

Funny how you word that "working poor parents". If you were to look at statistics of poor people in this country you will find that they are more likely to own 2 televisions than none. They are more likely to subscribe to cable/satellite TV than not. They are more likely to consume alcohol each week than not to. Yet we must sacrifice tax dollars from everyone to pay for their childrens lunches. Ridiculous.

Edit: They are also more likely to own 2 cars than none. In fact, here's some facts.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Those are the families receiving free lunch at school.

Only in America can you basically live in the lap of luxury by world standards and still be considered poor.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Yep.....all working poor parents are alcholics and couch potatoes. You're a real piece of work!

Funny how you word that "working poor parents". If you were to look at statistics of poor people in this country you will find that they are more likely to own 2 televisions than none. They are more likely to subscribe to cable/satellite TV than not. They are more likely to consume alcohol each week than not to. Yet we must sacrifice tax dollars from everyone to pay for their childrens lunches. Ridiculous.

Edit: They are also more likely to own 2 cars than none. In fact, here's some facts.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Those are the families receiving free lunch at school.

Gotta love how 60+% of welfare bums have cable TV.

Gee, the Heritage Foundation engaging in distorting logic and creating ways to criticize the poor.

Here's an assignment for Blanco and Zen. Read this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1353081&enterthread=y&arctab=y

Much along the same lines as that ridiculous Heritage Foundation article.

Finished reading yet, zendari?

???

So much for Brave, Brave Sir Robin.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
these same people that advocate it so whole-heartedly would be using their own time and money to give these children meals.

Agreed. Just as those who whole-heartedly support the war in Iraq should be over there fighting, and dying, for what they believe in. Why aren't you there Blanco?

I am willing to put my money where my mouth is are you?

Edit: In fact, I swear I will donate $1000 to the childrens charity of your choice as soon as I have absolute proof you are fighting in Iraq.

How about you do those kids a favor and donate anyway?

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: daveymark
How about you do those kids a favor and donate anyway?

Blanco convinced me that these kids aren't deserving of any favor at all.

Seriously though, I give both time and money to my preferred organization The Smith Family foundation which seeks to assist disadvantaged children here in Australia... the country I currently call home. I wish I could offer them more of both my time and, especially my money, but I do what I can. (edit: okay, I actually could offer them more of my time... but I don't because I am a selfish being I suppose)

I simply offered to reward Blanco's favourite cause if he would be willing to personally demonstrate his commitment to war. Of course I knew his cowardice would allow me to make such a statement without worry. Tacky ploy I admit but no more tacky than begrudging free lunch to school children.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: sxr7171


..and we should create incentives for people to pop out babies left and right? There should be way that only those of you who voted "Yes" should pay a tax surcharge to fund this. Then we'll see how many of you will vote "Yes."

Where can we send your bill for OUR portion of the Iraq war then? I'll trade FREE LUNCH payments in exchange for you paying for the Iraq War ($5.6 billion per year for free lunch vs $400+ billion and $100 billion each year for the war). What say you? We'll see how many of the chickenhawks would pony up the money!

 

[soccerballtux]

No free lunch. My taxes, I want it going to the roads I'm driving on, not some kid who most likely isn't motivated to do his homework.

Give them free lunch if they keep their grades at A's and B's. Show them that not everything should be handed to them. And don't give lunch to the fat kids. If they're in 15 lbs excess of the "healthy" standard that whoever makes those decisions decided, don't feed them. Those weights for given heights are far too much anyhow. I'm musculur, atheletic build, and at LEAST 25 pounds under the recommended weight. Someone not musculur who is my same height should weigh LESS than me, not more.

America is fat, and the government needs to take away fat people's food.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
No free lunch. My taxes, I want it going to the roads I'm driving on, not some kid who most likely isn't motivated to do his homework.

Give them free lunch if they keep their grades at A's and B's. Show them that not everything should be handed to them. And don't give lunch to the fat kids. If they're in 15 lbs excess of the "healthy" standard that whoever makes those decisions decided, don't feed them. Those weights for given heights are far too much anyhow. I'm musculur, atheletic build, and at LEAST 25 pounds under the recommended weight. Someone not musculur who is my same height should weigh LESS than me, not more.

America is fat, and the government needs to take away fat people's food.

I want my money (that's being borrowed from the Chinese) that's going to the Iraq war to go toward my check. How about a trade, eh?

 

[Asymptoke]

If this happened would the quality of food go even lower?

I would rather see healthier meals offered and removing McDonald's and Coke machines from schools.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Asymptoke
If this happened would the quality of food go even lower?

I would rather see healthier meals offered and removing McDonald's and Coke machines from schools.

A voice of reason!

If you want people to be healthier, then write your local government so they'd stop serving hamburgers and french fries in the cafeteria! But be prepared - healthy meals cost more!

 

[lyssword]

Ok since some of you think that poor children actually have any say in how their parents spend their money/resources: Give children over age of 10 jobs that can be done by them, give them the ability to vote, ability to drive cars, ability to rent/buy housing and all of that good stuff that adults get. Untill all of this can be given to children I don't think its fair to say that children themselves can choose whethere they are poor or not and whether they should get free lunch or not (lol btw if they could vote they would vote for free lunch ) if this makes any sense ...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Asymptoke
If this happened would the quality of food go even lower?

I would rather see healthier meals offered and removing McDonald's and Coke machines from schools.

A voice of reason!

If you want people to be healthier, then write your local government so they'd stop serving hamburgers and french fries in the cafeteria! But be prepared - healthy meals cost more!

School food isn't making kids fat. It's the sodas consumed and then the kids' diet at home and their exercise level or, rather, the lack thereof.

We ate pizza, burgers, etc. in school and I was as skinny as a rail until I turned 29 and a 2 1/2 week to Belgium (and steaks and beer and beer and beer) put 15lbs on me in a month


And soccerballtux brings up somewhat of a good point as far as something like a merit-based incentive for free lunches but you can't force a child to get good grades or else. I wonder if some middle ground couldn't be reach along those lines, though. Interesting idea.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: conjur
School food isn't making kids fat. It's the sodas consumed and then the kids' diet at home and their exercise level or, rather, the lack thereof.

We ate pizza, burgers, etc. in school and I was as skinny as a rail until I turned 29 and a 2 1/2 week to Belgium (and steaks and beer and beer and beer) put 15lbs on me in a month


And soccerballtux brings up somewhat of a good point as far as something like a merit-based incentive for free lunches but you can't force a child to get good grades or else. I wonder if some middle ground couldn't be reach along those lines, though. Interesting idea.

Actually it's a cruel idea which bears no root in reality. He is assuming that everyone is capable of getting good grades. In essence, such a program would say: "If you're poor, and not too bright, you get to go hungry". And if you think being hungry inspires people to study and avoid a life of crime, then you're on a different planet entirely.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: sxr7171


..and we should create incentives for people to pop out babies left and right? There should be way that only those of you who voted "Yes" should pay a tax surcharge to fund this. Then we'll see how many of you will vote "Yes."

Where can we send your bill for OUR portion of the Iraq war then? I'll trade FREE LUNCH payments in exchange for you paying for the Iraq War ($5.6 billion per year for free lunch vs $400+ billion and $100 billion each year for the war). What say you? We'll see how many of the chickenhawks would pony up the money!

You people are always out to make stupid assumptions. I never said I was for the war, you assumed that. I'd be the happiest guy if all that money was put into education right now.

I believe in personal financial responsibility and that doesn't make me pro-war. While people like you can only see two ends of a pole, understand that there are many points on and off that pole.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: sxr7171


..and we should create incentives for people to pop out babies left and right? There should be way that only those of you who voted "Yes" should pay a tax surcharge to fund this. Then we'll see how many of you will vote "Yes."

Where can we send your bill for OUR portion of the Iraq war then? I'll trade FREE LUNCH payments in exchange for you paying for the Iraq War ($5.6 billion per year for free lunch vs $400+ billion and $100 billion each year for the war). What say you? We'll see how many of the chickenhawks would pony up the money!

You people are always out to make stupid assumptions. I never said I was for the war, you assumed that. I'd be the happiest guy if all that money was put into education right now.

I believe in personal financial responsibility and that doesn't make me pro-war.

I'm telling you as I've been told....I don't get to pick and choose and neither do you! I say to you all...take it to the congress and get laughed out of DC. It's your dime! :laugh:

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: sxr7171


..and we should create incentives for people to pop out babies left and right? There should be way that only those of you who voted "Yes" should pay a tax surcharge to fund this. Then we'll see how many of you will vote "Yes."

Where can we send your bill for OUR portion of the Iraq war then? I'll trade FREE LUNCH payments in exchange for you paying for the Iraq War ($5.6 billion per year for free lunch vs $400+ billion and $100 billion each year for the war). What say you? We'll see how many of the chickenhawks would pony up the money!

You people are always out to make stupid assumptions. I never said I was for the war, you assumed that. I'd be the happiest guy if all that money was put into education right now.

I believe in personal financial responsibility and that doesn't make me pro-war.

I'm telling you as I've been told....I don't get to pick and choose and neither do you! I say to you all...take it to the congress and get laughed out of DC. It's your dime! :laugh:

The question wasn't whether I wholeheartedly support Democrats or Republicans or even which of the two I feel is the lesser evil, but whether or not I support free meals.

Somehow it became political and other issues got dragged in.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: sxr7171


..and we should create incentives for people to pop out babies left and right? There should be way that only those of you who voted "Yes" should pay a tax surcharge to fund this. Then we'll see how many of you will vote "Yes."

Where can we send your bill for OUR portion of the Iraq war then? I'll trade FREE LUNCH payments in exchange for you paying for the Iraq War ($5.6 billion per year for free lunch vs $400+ billion and $100 billion each year for the war). What say you? We'll see how many of the chickenhawks would pony up the money!

You people are always out to make stupid assumptions. I never said I was for the war, you assumed that. I'd be the happiest guy if all that money was put into education right now.

I believe in personal financial responsibility and that doesn't make me pro-war.

I'm telling you as I've been told....I don't get to pick and choose and neither do you! I say to you all...take it to the congress and get laughed out of DC. It's your dime! :laugh:

The question wasn't whether I wholeheartedly support Democrats or Republicans or even which of the two I feel is the lesser evil, but whether or not I support free meals.

Somehow it became political and other issues got dragged in.

Well, I support them. We balance each other out. It's always political here...hence the name Politics and News!

Sorry to jump the gun.....too much holiday cheer! My apologies!

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: sxr7171


..and we should create incentives for people to pop out babies left and right? There should be way that only those of you who voted "Yes" should pay a tax surcharge to fund this. Then we'll see how many of you will vote "Yes."

Where can we send your bill for OUR portion of the Iraq war then? I'll trade FREE LUNCH payments in exchange for you paying for the Iraq War ($5.6 billion per year for free lunch vs $400+ billion and $100 billion each year for the war). What say you? We'll see how many of the chickenhawks would pony up the money!

You people are always out to make stupid assumptions. I never said I was for the war, you assumed that. I'd be the happiest guy if all that money was put into education right now.

I believe in personal financial responsibility and that doesn't make me pro-war.

I'm telling you as I've been told....I don't get to pick and choose and neither do you! I say to you all...take it to the congress and get laughed out of DC. It's your dime! :laugh:

The question wasn't whether I wholeheartedly support Democrats or Republicans or even which of the two I feel is the lesser evil, but whether or not I support free meals.

Somehow it became political and other issues got dragged in.

Well, I support them. We balance each other out. It's always political here...hence the name Politics and News!

Sorry to jump the gun.....too much holiday cheer! My apologies!

No problem man!