Taxpayers On The Hook To Feed Children

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Similar to how people were flipping out about Obama's healthcare plan, but when Romney suggested something very similar for his state it's ok because he's a rich white Republican.
Or its because Massachusetts is one of the most liberals states in the country?
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Nope, take the kids away if they can't feed them. Then reduce their food stamps to single, use that money to feed and take care of kids. If they get their shit together and can prove it, then they get the kids back.

There need to be SERIOUS strings attached if you are going to take tax payer money. The parents will get in line after they lose their extra welfare and food stamp money, they'll make sure to take care of the little cash machines in the family next time.
Oh, so you are in favor of a massive government undertaking to take custody of hundreds of thousands of kids, to feed, cloth and shelter them.

Its funny seeing little nehalem not acknowledge that conservatives are also people getting divorces and having children. They are even more responsible since they always claim they are morally sound. Ahh the humor in it.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Its funny seeing little nehalem not acknowledge that conservatives are also people getting divorces and having children. They are even more responsible since they always claim they are morally sound. Ahh the humor in it.
I said it was liberalism supports no-fault divorce and having bastard children.

The fact that conservatives practice liberal values is a different, although related, problem.

But how can you fix a problem if you do not even claim to think it is a problem?

And if 1/2 the population actively supports no-fault divorce and having bastard children then of course it will be prevalent in everyone. In order for those things to not occur the entire culture has to oppose it.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Why are you getting so angry? The program is being ABUSED which is a waste of tax dollars
If you think it's being abused, then support changing it so that they check income eligibility. Instead, you want to can it. Your thread title says it all, "tax payers on the hook to feed children (angry face)." We get it. You're offended that a penny out of every $10 of your paycheck may go to feeding children.

You epitomize all the worst stereotypes that liberals espouse of conservatives.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
So to be clear you support the tearing apart of families and/or forced sterilization?
I have no problem tearing apart families if the situation warrants it. For example if the mother is 14. Or if the parent is abusive. In fact I assume you are in favor of tearing apart families too...unless you think children should stay with abusive parents.

Forced sterilization is really an outdated methodology of reproductive control that was primarily used before the advent of effective birth control technology. In most cases abortions would be preferable as it allows the person the chance to shape of their life and start a family at a later date when they are ready. However, previously someone posted an example of a woman who had had 7 children removed from her, because she abused her. In that situation I would absolutely be in favor forced sterilization.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
If you think it's being abused, then support changing it so that they check income eligibility. Instead, you want to can it. Your thread title says it all, "tax payers on the hook to feed children (angry face)." We get it. You're offended that a penny out of every $10 of your paycheck may go to feeding children.

You epitomize all the worst stereotypes that liberals espouse of conservatives.
I think Dainthomas was correct that income verification would cost more than the food. Certainly it would cost more than is saved. Hell, if we can't get the federal government to agree that income verification is necessary to get a taxpayer-guaranteed mortgage, I doubt we'll have much luck with lunch.

I can't believe that a parent so freakin' trifling that she can't be bothered to feed her own children, even with the taxpayer already ponying up for food stamps, is in any way a fit parent, so yes, I'd support taking away the children. I'd be willing to pay the extra tax to support them in foster homes. But honestly, I see no practical way to do that. The parents (or to be honest, welfare mothers) would continue to trade the food stamps for nail treatments, hair extensions and alcohol, they still wouldn't feed the kids, there would be little way to ever catch them, and we'd have already-disadvantaged children growing up with abnormally low intelligence due to poor nutrition.

Cheaper and easier to just pay for the food twice to know at least once the money actually fed the children. If some people get an undeserved free lunch on our dime, there's probably no more waste and fraud than any government program. At least it's not like the people getting undeserved free lunches have teams of lobbyists and lawyers and pet Congresscritters to get the big graft like in most government programs.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,671
136
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/07/taxpayer-backed-free-lunch-program-feeds-controversy-in-california/

Taxpayers are on the hook to feed children and many of these children actually come from families that make enough money but are lazy. This is just wrong and makes no sense at all.

This is another case where the government has no right to be involved and is wasting tax dollars. It is not the governments job to feed people.

This program needs to be ended since it costs taxpayers too much, Do you agree?
Are there no prisons? No workhouses? Can these children not be sold offshore into sexual slavery, made to work for their keep?
 

shurato

Platinum Member
Sep 24, 2000
2,398
0
0
There's gov't waste everywhere. Outrage over the efficiency of the program feeding kids should be at the lowest of the low of priority levels here. You should see the RIDICULOUS waste I see in my field. I'll give you a hint...it's the opposite of Offense.

This is really stretching it to pin on Obama. So your telling me we can feed prisoners 3 square meals a day but you want to bitch about some poor kids getting something to eat at school for lunch? Is it safe to assume those that are bitching about Obama in regards to this topic are mostly Republicans? And it looks like the red states are so called "abusing" this more than blue states? Color me not surprised.

Some of you live in an alternate reality. If there was karma, you'd lose your job and become poor and understand what it feels like to struggle to pay the rent to keep a roof over your families head each month. Oh but your getting your kid free lunches at school so you must be an unfit parent.

Some of you here seriously need to step out of your bubble once in a while.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Are there no prisons? No workhouses? Can these children not be sold offshore into sexual slavery, made to work for their keep?
You have half a good idea there. When women have children they cannot afford put the child up for adoption and then sell the woman into sexual slavery.

1.) Child wont starve and gets raised by parents who are not idiots. :thumbsup:
2.) Taxpayer will not be burdened by the choices of idiots :thumbsup:
3.) Women do not have to be forced to have abortions :thumbsup:

Everyone wins!
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
Look, you guys need to wake up. You got two choices. One you pay taxes to help these people or you kick everyone on welfare out of this country. Your little idealogical utopia is an impossibility.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
The stupid thing is atleast 25% of the food in these programs are thrown away. They must purchae a whole meal for every child each day, so if a child doesn't eat all of that whole meal for that day, for example if they don't want the fruit, or if they are out for the day. That portion must be thrown a way. Tons of food are thrown away each day by schools because of this.

If you have 500 students on the program at a school, and 50 of them are out for the day, then you must throw away 50 of those meals. If half of those 500 students don't eat the fruit for the day, then you must throw away 250 fruits for that day.

The dumb thing is they cannot donate it to any food bank, or chairty, they call it a liability issue.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
317
126
Right, because advocating morals that lead to child hunger and then complaining when children go hungry without government bailouts is a a sign of "reason" :rolleyes:
I think he means MORELS, those wonderful mushrooms.

MORELS have a stronger relation to divorce than morals do.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
317
126
You have half a good idea there. When women have children they cannot afford put the child up for adoption and then sell the woman into sexual slavery.

1.) Child wont starve and gets raised by parents who are not idiots. :thumbsup:
2.) Taxpayer will not be burdened by the choices of idiots :thumbsup:
3.) Women do not have to be forced to have abortions :thumbsup:

Everyone wins!
Nevermind, he clearly eats magic mushrooms.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Look, you guys need to wake up. You got two choices. One you pay taxes to help these people or you kick everyone on welfare out of this country. Your little idealogical utopia is an impossibility.
I'll take the latter, thank you.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
So to be clear you support allowing 14 year old girls to be mothers?

EDIT: 14 year old girls are prohibited from getting body piercings (At least in Wisconsin)... why should we allow them to be parents?

http://www.avant-garde-piercing.com/Legal Requirments/LegalRequirments.htm
I agree. We should have government enforced abortions and Death Panels for this. o_O

You have half a good idea there. When women have children they cannot afford put the child up for adoption and then sell the woman into sexual slavery.
There are already tens of thousands of children waiting to be adopted. You are assuming that children are immediately adopted and there's no shortage of adoptive parents.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
31,011
4,490
126
What aren't you getting? The feds incent and essentially force schools to use these programs. It should come as no surprise that states with more poor people would use more programs aimed at poor people.
That's actually true.

Don't get telecom funding unless you keep a high FRL enrollment. Highest percentages get priority for a $2 billion handout.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
That's actually true.

Don't get telecom funding unless you keep a high FRL enrollment. Highest percentages get priority for a $2 billion handout.
Yep. Want more monies? Get your FRL enrollment as high as you can! What could possibly go wrong?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
I agree. We should have government enforced abortions and Death Panels for this. o_O


There are already tens of thousands of children waiting to be adopted. You are assuming that children are immediately adopted and there's no shortage of adoptive parents.
How many of these children are babies?

vs.

How many are partially grown children with significant issues from have been abused/neglected for years?

Which child would you rather adopt?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,671
136
How many of these children are babies?

vs.

How many are partially grown children with significant issues from have been abused/neglected for years?

Which child would you rather adopt?
So, uhh, you suggest we should substitute one sort of alleged abuse for an even greater one perpetrated by govt?

What makes you think that poor children are abused by their parents rather than systemically, by policies that pander to your own headset?

The fundamental flaw in all Righties' headsets is this fixation on the notion that society's downtrodden are there because they lack "personal responsibility". It happens because we haven't lived up to our own ideals as expressed in the Constitution-

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the people", not "I the self righteous wingnut". Insure domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare. Not deny the interdependence of us all on each other by raving about personal responsibility from a position of power over the least powerful members of society. Not denying the existence of "We" as expressed in democracy itself.

"We" pay some of America's wealthiest vast sums in the form of farm subsidies, tax breaks & so forth to create a situation where food isn't scarce at all, but rather abundant, unlike the situation in the late 18th century. "We" didn't do that so that idiots could rave about others receiving "free food" as if they actually suffer from such being the case at all. We did it so that free food could exist for those who need or want it, because it's difficult to tell the difference in any honest sort of way. "We" don't even care about that, other than the moralistic simpletons among us, so long as those in need receive what they need. "We" can easily afford to be generous in this regard, because "We" have made food so abundant that more of it likely gets thrown away than given away, all at minimal expense to any of us. "We" have created food resources so enormous that only fools like yourself can even think of coveting what little others have, aided by an antiquated way of distributing food as if it were actually scarce.

What's next? Idiots like yourself claiming that those you consider undeserving shouldn't be allowed air?

You've already declared that they don't deserve food, shelter, freedom or much of anything else, so it seems like the next logical step in your progression towards Libertopian lunacy.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
So, uhh, you suggest we should substitute one sort of alleged abuse for an even greater one perpetrated by govt?

What makes you think that poor children are abused by their parents rather than systemically, by policies that pander to your own headset?

The fundamental flaw in all Righties' headsets is this fixation on the notion that society's downtrodden are there because they lack "personal responsibility". It happens because we haven't lived up to our own ideals as expressed in the Constitution-
Yes, because clearly giving children, parents that have the time and money to raise them, instead of 14 year olds is "abuse". :rolleyes:

"We the people", not "I the self righteous wingnut". Insure domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare. Not deny the interdependence of us all on each other by raving about personal responsibility from a position of power over the least powerful members of society. Not denying the existence of "We" as expressed in democracy itself.

"We" pay some of America's wealthiest vast sums in the form of farm subsidies, tax breaks & so forth to create a situation where food isn't scarce at all, but rather abundant, unlike the situation in the late 18th century. "We" didn't do that so that idiots could rave about others receiving "free food" as if they actually suffer from such being the case at all. We did it so that free food could exist for those who need or want it, because it's difficult to tell the difference in any honest sort of way. "We" don't even care about that, other than the moralistic simpletons among us, so long as those in need receive what they need. "We" can easily afford to be generous in this regard, because "We" have made food so abundant that more of it likely gets thrown away than given away, all at minimal expense to any of us. "We" have created food resources so enormous that only fools like yourself can even think of coveting what little others have, aided by an antiquated way of distributing food as if it were actually scarce.
Please explain how allowing 14 year olds, drug addicts, etc to reproduce promotes the general welfare?

Oh, and the reason we promote a situation where food isnt scarce should be obvious.... its to insure a stable food supply, so if you have a bad crop everyone does not end up in the street fighting over the limited food.

It is not to give free food to people who make poor life choices.
You've already declared that they don't deserve food, shelter, freedom or much of anything else, so it seems like the next logical step in your progression towards Libertopian lunacy.
You mean as opposed to your "utopia" where people are allowed to do whatever they want and then get bailed out?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY