OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,302
- 144
- 106
Because handing out free food to people is obviously the way to combat obesity
do you have evidence that this program is making the kids fat?
what bizarre logic you are displaying...
Because handing out free food to people is obviously the way to combat obesity
There are women who have admitted to doing this and make good money
You can't even spell emotion right, and you expect any of us to take anything you say seriously? Its not a difficult word, only 7 letters.
.
The government spends $100s of billions of dollars bailing out these people...
Think:
Medicaid
Food stamps
Subsidized daycare
EITC
WIC
Section 8
etc
So, no it amounts to $1000s/taxpayer in subsidies.
EDIT: But hey if you do not want a $1000 I will gladly take it off your hands.
And I didnt even get into the other societal costs like higher crime, wasting educational time attempting to educate their children, abused children, etc.
So, uhh, you try to broaden the discussion to include all aspects of welfare in defense of your disdain for feeding children?
Go ahead- tell us the total cost of the program mentioned in the OP.
The "Summer Fun Cafe" in Northern California and others like it are funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in areas where at least half the children qualify for free lunches during the regular school year.
Tell us about the faux outrage about how affluent families "might" be taking advantage of it, families you contend vote Republican more often than not...
Which might be true, given that Righties rarely pass up anything that's Free! Free! Free!
The whole reference to higher crime & wasted educational time is utterly classist & dishonest. Feeding children causes crime? really? Hungry malnourished children learn better? Perhaps we should just kick them to hte curb in your authoritarian utopia, huh?
Perhaps if your idols, the job creator bitches, would give it up, pay better, hire more people, then the welfare state might be diminished, huh?
Tell me what the name of the overall program is. How am I suppose to google the cost from
I can tell you that Food stamps alone costs $85 billion
I oppose the program even if no affluent families take advantage of it. As was explained earlier the program is a bailout for people who waste their food stamps. But hey lets continue to let those kinds of people have kids :\
So your argument is that righties are not dumb
People who cannot/will not take care of their children lead to higher crime and wasted educational resources attempting to make up for their poor parenting.
You know the same kind of parents who do not use their food stamps to feed their kids resulting in the need for this program.
Maybe if liberals had not flooded the job market with extra job seekers wages would be hire and we would not need to create so many extra jobs.
Maybe if liberals had not advanced having bastard children and no-fault divorce wages would not need to be so high as only one household would need to be supported, and childcare would not need to be covered.
Nice dodge. So you support people not needing the program taking advantage of it? That's the basis for outrage among other Righties. You have evidence that participants are wasting foodstamps?
Just greedy.
Which justifies not having the program how, exactly? Are you really advocating social darwinism wrt a commodity, food, of which there is an absolute abundance in this country? Are you advocating reducing the revenue stream of food producers?
So we should ban women from working? Declare that there can be only one wage earner per family?
Your perceptions wrt the past & bastard children are utterly erroneous. 50 years ago, shotgun weddings abounded, followed by nasty contested divorce a few years later, resulting in much the same demographic spread. And when it didn't, we had miserable mismatched couples showing their children the true meaning of love.
I oppose the program entirely. If people did not waste their food stamps their would be no need for an additional program to feed their kids.
It is a program the bails out idiotic behavior. Why should I care about the revenue of food producers?
We should not have promoted them going to work in the first place. Reversing such as stupid idea is of course much harder than stopping it to begin with.
EDIT: Although I see you do not even try to argue with the fact that promoting women going into the workforce will naturally lead to a combination of higher unemployment and lower wages. And that is assuming the demand for labor stays constant, not decreases due to automation and out-sourcing. Really its a miracle unemployment is not even higher.
Which of course explains why the divorce rate is lower now... oh wait its not
In my experience there are a small minority of Section 8 renters that actually keep their homes very well, so that if you didn't know it was Section 8 you'd never suspect it.
Children are now responsible for their parents' actions? Really? You don't care about the jobs provided by food producers? Is this one of those cut spending to create jerbs deals, all over again?
Should have kept them in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant, totally dependent upon their man, right? Your assertion that women working is a stupid idea obviously won't play well with half the population- women. Never should have let them vote, either, I suppose.
Your usual duh-version into sexism does not explain the strong decline in share of national income among median families & below, at all. That's the real problem, and the basis for the welfare state. Two income families also have economic stability that single earner families lack, something you'd obviously prefer to forget.
Never claimed it was.
And what is the "system" if not the government?
We are describing people who are CHOOSING to make their own lives worse. They are not being punished my some "system". Their own CHOICES are making their life worse... assuming they even agree that it is worse.
My assertion is that women working has consequences on unemployment and wages. Why do you continue to deny this.
Well in the same vein, men working would have similar consequences on unemployment and wages. Maybe we should be encouraging men to not work?
The 'system' is everything (both the market and the government). Even in the most communist of nations the government doesn't make up the entire system (well, maybe in NK).
Yes, we are describing people who make choices that make their lives worse. By definition, that means they are punished for their choices.
It's not so hard:
Choice A: Life gets better
Choice B: Life gets worse
That means you are punished for making choice B. Even if the government gives more benefits to choice B people, people are rewarded for making choice A and are punished for making choice B.
Would you agree that Mitt Romney has been rewarded, very generously, for making good life choices?
1.) You are assuming they agree that the CHOICE makes their life worse. But why would someone make a choice, with easily foreseeable consequences, that would make their life worse?
2.) I could take an ax and chop off my hand. That would make my life worse. But no one, and no system would be punishing me. And I would deserve no sympathy from anyone for my stupidity.
EDIT: And as for (1) the obvious solution is to keep people from making choices that will make their life worse. Which is exactly what I have been advocating for.
People do it all the time. I'm not sure why this confuses you (and it's not just poor people). Look at college enrollment by program. Look at zero down, interest only adjustable rate mortgages.
Actually, the system would in fact punish you. You would immediately be disqualified from a number of jobs that require the usage of both hands.
Except your solutions (mandatory abortions, forced sterilization, mandatory adoption) are both pure fantasy and totalitarian garbage. It all sounds well and good until someone else decides that YOU are the person who is making the poor decisions.
The obvious solution that doesn't turn the country into a slave state shit hole is to provide the means for people to make good decisions.
You seem to be failing understand the difference between a consequence and a punishment.
If a 3 year old touches a hot stove and gets burned that is a consequence.
If a 3 year old tries to touch a stove and you put them in timeout that is a punishment.
I only proposed forced sterilization for people who abuse their children...repeatedly.
EDIT: And a stupid argument. Hey maybe we should let 14 year old girls be prostitutes. Because who knows, maybe next we wont allow them to have babies :\
Except for the little problem of people being stupid.
Also, "slave state" is quite funny. When you believe in forcibly taking money from me and handing it to someone else to pay for their poor life choices... that sounds a lot more like slavery than what I am proposing.
Putting them in time out is also a consequence. Getting a good job is a consequence of going to a good school for an in demand program and getting good grades. Consequence does not convey either a positive or negative.
But even using your analogy, a parent putting aloe vera on the burn is not a reward for touching the stove.
Your plan still involves taking money from you to pay for the poor life choices of others. In fact, if the government started taking on care for every child born to a mother under the age of 18 (one of your suggestions) it would involve taking orders of magnitude more of your money to pay for those mistakes.
Correct a consequence can be negative or positive.
Giving the child ice cream however would be. The difference is that aloe vera is not something you inherently want. Where as food, shelther, money, and medical care is.
If a child new that by burning themselves on the stove they would get ice cream would that make them more or less likely to do so?
Which is why abortions would clearly be a better method.
And as for cost of taking the children away we could simply make the mother pay child support to offset the costs.
And another dip into fantasy. As you so like to put it, your plan now hinges on stupid people making good decisions (and actually being able to afford the child support). If they could afford the child support, they wouldn't need to be on social assistance in the first place.
Those lunch ladies might as well be working for that paycheck. Why not feed the kids breakfast and lunch while they're at school? That seems to make sense because they spend up to 9 hours a day in that building. Maybe we should, *gasp*, increase public school budgets in order to properly raise the children in this nation. Shocking concept, I know.
And the present value of those things that they're getting is less than the cost of raising a kid. They'd be far better able to provide themselves with those things without the kid, which is why it is much closer to aloe than to ice cream.
I would also say in many (most) cases the quality of food, shelter and medical care is not what you would inherently want.
And once again more authoritarian and not constitutional.
And another dip into fantasy. As you so like to put it, your plan now hinges on stupid people making good decisions (and actually being able to afford the child support). If they could afford the child support, they wouldn't need to be on social assistance in the first place.
I am beginning to believe the ideal society for the radical right is to have us all live in prisons and use us as slave labor for free and only paying enough taxes to build more walls and feed us more pig slop. It's scary where these peoples' line of thought leads you when you walk it through to the end game.