Taxpayers On The Hook To Feed Children

Page 8 - 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
so the OP is about free lunches and now its about abortion... typical P&N
Typical of any thread that nehalem posts in. Within one page it is about women and abortions.
Yeah I wonder how a thread about the government providing food bailouts came to be about the cause and solution for said bailouts? :hmm:

If you have a thread about TARP do you wonder why people talk about banks and glass-steagall?
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
This program is ripe for abuse and makes it so people are reliable on the government which sets a dangerous path, people need to be independent.
You didn't answer the question, we all already know you feel like people abusing a system that feeds kids is wrong. You say people need to be independent but where is that line? Police, fire, roads, schools? What few things do you think the government should do?
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
You didn't answer the question, we all already know you feel like people abusing a system that feeds kids is wrong. You say people need to be independent but where is that line? Police, fire, roads, schools? What few things do you think the government should do?
Police,fire, roads, and schools are areas government should be involved in

The role of government is to defend freedom among other things, Its not to engage in welfare.

Certain areas of schools and roads can have the private sector involved.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
While I support feeding children, the fact remains a great deal of money is wasted on this program. When large portions of food are being trashed, something is wrong. Their are starving people in the world and we spend billions on a program to buy food and destroy it.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
I am willing to bet less than 50% of the money spent on this program actually feeds children in need, the rest goes to people who cheat the system, or for food that is simply trashed.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Well the logical answer would be preventing people who cannot feed children from having children in the first place.
Over and over you keep saying this and you never actually suggest a legal, realistic and cost effective way of accomplishing it.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Over and over you keep saying this and you never actually suggest a legal, realistic and cost effective way of accomplishing it.
Well you could start with mandating adoptions for any mother under 18.

Legal. CPS already has the power to take away children from unfit parents, it does not seem unreasonable to say that children are unfit parents.

Then simple logic will say that many of them will not want to go through 9 months of pregnancy just to have to give a child up and will then get an abortion.

EDIT: And anything can be legal with a constitutional amendment.
 

nanette1985

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2005
4,209
2
0
Well you could start with mandating adoptions for any mother under 18.

Legal. CPS already has the power to take away children from unfit parents, it does not seem unreasonable to say that children are unfit parents.

Then simple logic will say that many of them will not want to go through 9 months of pregnancy just to have to give a child up and will then get an abortion.

EDIT: And anything can be legal with a constitutional amendment.
No, we mandate sterilizing all men Can't become a mother without a guy
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
Police,fire, roads, and schools are areas government should be involved in

The role of government is to defend freedom among other things, Its not to engage in welfare.

Certain areas of schools and roads can have the private sector involved.
The only one you list that defends freedom at best are the police.

The rest are all essentially welfare. Actually the police are too. The government could step out of all of them and you'd still have all the freedom you want. The freedom to hire your own security, to put bars on your windows and install alarms. The freedom to install fire suppression. The freedom to build a road or more likely pay a toll to use someone else's road. The freedom to pay for your kid's education. Those that can't pay for all or some of those just deal with the consequences, they should have worked harder.

So you basically list all things that you are likely dependent on. Near as I can tell there are two kinds of fiscal conservatives these days.

One group that gnashes their teeth against any government spending except when it helps them. Kids getting a lunch, screw them they need to learn independence. But police patrolling my neighborhood and fire dept with a 2 minute response is completely justified. Nowhere is this hypocrisy more evident than a TEA party rally with folks on medicare scooters.

The second group just wants a reasonable system. They realize there are poor people that will need help. They typically don't like welfare but also know you can't get away from it. They care a lot about ensuring only the truly needy get help almost to a fault. They tend to believe in cost cutting across the board (no pet programs/depts like DoD) and some believe that revenue increase (aka taxes) are potentially ok as well.

The first group is a growing number of Republicans. I find them insufferable. They live in an imaginary world not grounded in reality. The second I don't always agree with but they are at least consistent and realistic.

You fall squarely in that first group, you aren't alone on this board but there you are.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
The only one you list that defends freedom at best are the police.

The rest are all essentially welfare. Actually the police are too. The government could step out of all of them and you'd still have all the freedom you want. The freedom to hire your own security, to put bars on your windows and install alarms. The freedom to install fire suppression. The freedom to build a road or more likely pay a toll to use someone else's road. The freedom to pay for your kid's education. Those that can't pay for all or some of those just deal with the consequences, they should have worked harder.

So you basically list all things that you are likely dependent on. Near as I can tell there are two kinds of fiscal conservatives these days.

One group that gnashes their teeth against any government spending except when it helps them. Kids getting a lunch, screw them they need to learn independence. But police patrolling my neighborhood and fire dept with a 2 minute response is completely justified. Nowhere is this hypocrisy more evident than a TEA party rally with folks on medicare scooters.

The second group just wants a reasonable system. They realize there are poor people that will need help. They typically don't like welfare but also know you can't get away from it. They care a lot about ensuring only the truly needy get help almost to a fault. They tend to believe in cost cutting across the board (no pet programs/depts like DoD) and some believe that revenue increase (aka taxes) are potentially ok as well.

The first group is a growing number of Republicans. I find them insufferable. They live in an imaginary world not grounded in reality. The second I don't always agree with but they are at least consistent and realistic.

You fall squarely in that first group, you aren't alone on this board but there you are.

Wrong, You didn't even read my post, I said freedom is one thing the government defends.

Police and fire are necessary from government, welfare doesn't help poor people and I along with other hard working Americans shouldn't have to pay for it, whats wrong with donating to charity, oh wait you want others to pay for it.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
CPS protects kids from unfit parents, but who protects kids from unfit CPS.

Their have been multiple documented cases here of children being killed and seriously injured because of the incompetence of CPS, which includes falsifying documents and doctor letters.

The WORST thing is these people have immunity from any criminal prosecution here for the deaths they cause. Sickening.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
In fact multiple grand jurry investigation here have concluded that the children in the care of CPS are significant danger because of the incompetence and outright fraud that goes on at CPS here. The sad thing is little is done to fix it.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
In fact multiple grand jurry investigation here have concluded that the children in the care of CPS are significant danger because of the incompetence and outright fraud that goes on at CPS here. The sad thing is little is done to fix it.
Well what else would you expect from government
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
Wrong, You didn't even read my post, I said freedom is one thing the government defends.

Police and fire are necessary from government, welfare doesn't help poor people and I along with other hard working Americans shouldn't have to pay for it, whats wrong with donating to charity, oh wait you want others to pay for it.
I did concede police protect freedom but you didn't read the first sentence of my post...so you start on shaky ground already.

In what way does a kid eating lunch not help them? In what way would that lunch being from charity be significantly different? You claim this doesn't help them but provide nothing to back that up.

Charity doesn't work because it is uneven at best. Not all causes are picturesque or heart warming. In this case charity could probably work but it won't in numerous other cases and dividing up help by popular vote will never work. It will be like soup kitchens on Christmas and tday that have trouble getting volunteers in July. It also doesn't work because you typically need more welfare when the economy goes down which is when charitable giving also goes down.

Of course I want others to pay for it, in addition to the taxes I pay. I want others to pay for police, fire, schools, roads, welfare, defense, regulations, etc. I don't complain about paying taxes because I am where I am because the government provides something for everyone. Some people need more of that something and some people need less and that is ok. Some people pay more into it than others and that is ok. I don't agree with everything it gets spent on but I have no problem with it being spent to help people and you really haven't shown how this doesn't help them.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Well you could start with mandating adoptions for any mother under 18.

Legal. CPS already has the power to take away children from unfit parents, it does not seem unreasonable to say that children are unfit parents.

Then simple logic will say that many of them will not want to go through 9 months of pregnancy just to have to give a child up and will then get an abortion.

EDIT: And anything can be legal with a constitutional amendment.
1) That isn't currently legal. You'd need to get rid of due process, which has far more sweeping implications.
2) If we're saying anything is legal, we may as well say our solution is for the government to kill everyone who has a problem with social programs.
3) It is not realistic. You will NEVER drum up even a little support for automatically taking babies from people, let alone getting people to sign on to scrapping due process.
4) This is NOT cost effective. You'll spend far more on foster care then you ever would on food stamps, the foster care system is already chock full, and you're unlikely to have much better of a citizen once they grow up.

So your 'solution' to government wasting money is to waste more money while shitting all over the constitution. And your 'solution' increases the financial penalty for the general public and a decreases the financial penalty to those making the bad decision.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,667
136
1) That isn't currently legal. You'd need to get rid of due process, which has far more sweeping implications.
2) If we're saying anything is legal, we may as well say our solution is for the government to kill everyone who has a problem with social programs.
3) It is not realistic. You will NEVER drum up even a little support for automatically taking babies from people, let alone getting people to sign on to scrapping due process.
4) This is NOT cost effective. You'll spend far more on foster care then you ever would on food stamps, the foster care system is already chock full, and you're unlikely to have much better of a citizen once they grow up.

So your 'solution' to government wasting money is to waste more money while shitting all over the constitution. And your 'solution' increases the financial penalty for the general public and a decreases the financial penalty to those making the bad decision.
It's as Moonbeam contends- Righties just make shit up to support their faith in fantasy, then believe it themselves. Wash, rinse, repeat until near total denial & disconnect results. They like to tie their panties in a knot before they even put 'em on.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
It's as Moonbeam contends- Righties just make shit up to support their faith in fantasy, then believe it themselves. Wash, rinse, repeat until near total denial & disconnect results. They like to tie their panties in a knot before they even put 'em on.
Actually, I don't think that's what it is in this case. It's not that they have solutions not based on reality -- there's no real desire for a rational solution at all.

It's just angry outbursts. These people don't like the idea of "their" money going to feed "other people's children", so they oppose it on principle, without giving any thought whatsoever to what that opposition implies, nor any consideration to what would be a better solution.

That goes double for nehalem, who not only never passes up an opportunity to express his hatred towards women, but actively manufactures them in nearly every thread he posts in.
 

dawheat

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
3,124
72
91
I am willing to bet less than 50% of the money spent on this program actually feeds children in need, the rest goes to people who cheat the system, or for food that is simply trashed.
Government waste and abuse drive me fricking crazy - and if there was a cost effective way to put in useful controls, we absolutely should. When the cost of controls exceeds any savings - then you have to make a pragmatic decision. Sometimes the cost of controls is worth it in the long term to keep abuse from growing, sometimes it doesn't make sense b/c you'll never get return out of it.

But literally, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Call me a bleeding heart liberal (who hated paying an effective tax rate last year of 28%) but I won't live in a country that abandons its destitue to the margins and hunger. Whether their bad decisions or not brought them to their situation, I and thankfully a lot of other Americans believe in not letting them starve. We'll have to agree to disagree and remain on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Actually, I don't think that's what it is in this case. It's not that they have solutions not based on reality -- there's no real desire for a rational solution at all.

It's just angry outbursts. These people don't like the idea of "their" money going to feed "other people's children", so they oppose it on principle, without giving any thought whatsoever to what that opposition implies, nor any consideration to what would be a better solution.

That goes double for nehalem, who not only never passes up an opportunity to express his hatred towards women, but actively manufactures them in nearly every thread he posts in.
Why should my hard earned tax dollars go to this waste? If you lefties are so adamant about this program why dont you guys donate money to charity? You want other people to pay for this to make yourselves feel better
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS