• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Taxpayers On The Hook To Feed Children

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
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.
.
oh how cute. Dem Playbook option 1 - personal attack.

When you have nothing to stand on, destroy the other person
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,340
14,562
136
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.

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?

Nah. the margin is a lot better hiring Chinese, loaning working Americans the money to buy schlock from Guangzhou, loaning the govt the money to support the welfare state.

All supported by faux outrage encouraged by their well paid stable of talking heads, echoed across the internet by stick up the ass delusionists like yourself.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
Tell me what the name of the overall program is. How am I suppose to google the cost from
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.

I can tell you that Food stamps alone costs $85 billion

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...
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 :\

Which might be true, given that Righties rarely pass up anything that's Free! Free! Free!
So your argument is that righties are not dumb :rolleyes:

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?
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.


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?
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.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,340
14,562
136
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
You're the one all huffy & outraged by it, so do your own homework. Most of that $85B goes around in a big circle, into the hands of food producers & distributors, who actually employ people to do it...

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 :\
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?

So your argument is that righties are not dumb :rolleyes:
Just greedy.

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.
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?


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.
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.

Get over your fantasies & yourself, too. Ozzie & Harriet, the Cleavers, & Andy Griffith were fantasies all along.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
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.

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?
It is a program the bails out idiotic behavior. Why should I care about the revenue of food producers?

So we should ban women from working? Declare that there can be only one wage earner per family?
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.

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.
Which of course explains why the divorce rate is lower now... oh wait its not :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,340
14,562
136
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.
Merely repeating an unsubstantiated assertion doesn't substantiate it.

It is a program the bails out idiotic behavior. Why should I care about the revenue of food producers?
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?

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.
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.

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.
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.

Which of course explains why the divorce rate is lower now... oh wait its not :rolleyes:
Never claimed it was.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
33,915
12,704
146
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.
I can believe that. Some people just like things tidy. I've been in non-section 8 housing that I also wanted to GTFO of asap!
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
My assertion is that women working has consequences on unemployment and wages. Why do you continue to deny this.

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.
Yes it does. The value of labor is decreased, because the supply increases. THAT is simply economics 101. And as you have shown previously the decline in national income began AFTER women entered the workforce, and BEFORE Reaganomics.

Two income families actually have less stability, as they are twice as vulnerable to job loss. Unless you are willing to live off the lesser of the 2 incomes even in good times there is no increase in stability.

Never claimed it was.
Then you assertion in no way refutes my original position on no-fault divorce.

EDIT:

And in fact it was completely possible for a smaller amount of women to enter the workforce, given that the labor force participation rate has decline among men

 
Last edited:

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
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.
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?
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
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?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Well in the same vein, men working would have similar consequences on unemployment and wages. Maybe we should be encouraging men to not work?
I am sure you could try and encourage men to be house husbands.

But how many women do you think would be happy with that arrangement?

As well as the little problem of maternity leave, and that men are physically incapable of breast feeding.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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? :confused:

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.
 
Last edited:

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
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? :confused:
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
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.

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.
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 :\

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.
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.
 
Last edited:

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
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.
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.

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 :\
You always like to pick out one thing and completely miss the others. Even still, simply taking the children away from the parent is less totalitarian (and would probably be constitutional) and serves the same end, and is even something you are in favor of.

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.
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.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
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?

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.
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.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
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.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
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?
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.

Which is why abortions would clearly be a better method.
And once again more authoritarian and not constitutional.

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.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
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.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
Because clearly public schools keep children around 24/7.

Because the people who CHOOSE to have children should not be responsible for that decision :rolleyes:
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
You keep thinking that they dont want the child though. But if that is true why did they have it?:confused:

And once again more authoritarian and not constitutional.
Because there is clearly not authoritarian about not my money to give to idiots to subsidized their poor life choices :rolleyes:


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.
So we should just stick the abortions then.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
Because forcing people to work to support others is not using us as slave labor?o_O
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY