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

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
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.

the what the US Government spends on this program is a drop in the bucket to the amount of money we spend in feeding "starving" people over seas by either sending real money or by sending food.

our people first period.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
Interesting, so you do like having you money taken from you to pay for other peoples poor life choices? :hmm:

And the best and most obvious solution is mandatory abortions. Unfortunately liberals worship the right of women to make any choice they damn well please no matter how stupid or negative to society.

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.
This is only because liberals do not know what "hatred towards women" actually means.

For example, apparently according to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-personhood_n_1767760.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

it means not supporting the forcible transfer of wealth from men to women.
He voted to defund federal family planning programs, authored a budget that dismantles Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, all of which disproportionately aid and employ women
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Interesting, so you do like having you money taken from you to pay for other peoples poor life choices? :hmm:

And the best and most obvious solution is mandatory abortions. Unfortunately liberals worship the right of women to make any choice they damn well please no matter how stupid or negative to society.



This is only because liberals do not know what "hatred towards women" actually means.

For example, apparently according to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-personhood_n_1767760.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

it means not supporting the forcible transfer of wealth from men to women.

Well said. According to idiot lefties women are always right and this is why we have to suffer the consequences of those idiots
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Interesting, so you do like having you money taken from you to pay for other peoples poor life choices? :hmm:

And the best and most obvious solution is mandatory abortions. Unfortunately liberals worship the right of women to make any choice they damn well please no matter how stupid or negative to society.
Yes I'm sure it's 'liberals' who will be the only people standing against the government deciding how can and cannot have children and giving abortions to people not on that list.

I'm also sure the people who don't think abortion should ever be legal would be in full support.

This is only because liberals do not know what "hatred towards women" actually means.

For example, apparently according to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-personhood_n_1767760.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

it means not supporting the forcible transfer of wealth from men to women.
I'm actually excited to hear your logic on how that article talks about forcible transfer of wealth from men to women. Also, since Romney/Ryan would be against your plan I guess that makes them 'liberals'.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Yes I'm sure it's 'liberals' who will be the only people standing against the government deciding how can and cannot have children and giving abortions to people not on that list.

I'm also sure the people who don't think abortion should ever be legal would be in full support.
Republicans and Democrats would both be opposed to the plan for different reasons.

The difference is Republicans would oppose it because they oppose killing "babies".

Whereas Democrats would oppose it because they refuse to tell teenagers, drug addicts, etc what to do with their bodies.

I'm actually excited to hear your logic on how that article talks about forcible transfer of wealth from men to women. Also, since Romney/Ryan would be against your plan I guess that makes them 'liberals'.
I already quoted it.

He voted to defund federal family planning programs, authored a budget that dismantles Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, all of which disproportionately aid and employ women
In short the majority of the domestic government forcibly transfers money from women to men.

Paul Ryan, authored a budget that transferred less money from men to women. So actually you have a point. Apparently being for less, but still some, forcible transfer of money from men to women equates to hating women.

I shudder to think what they would actually call ending all such transfers.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
In short the majority of the domestic government forcibly transfers money from women to men.

Paul Ryan, authored a budget that transferred less money from men to women. So actually you have a point. Apparently being for less, but still some, forcible transfer of money from men to women equates to hating women.

I shudder to think what they would actually call ending all such transfers.
You are attempting to put forth a truth on averages as a truth on a rule, and it doesn't hold.

The argument of the programs disproportionately employing females is ridiculous because both men and women are free to work in health care, so there is no 'forcible transfer of wealth from men to women' simply because you spend money in that industry. For example, you could choose to work in healthcare and then those programs now 'forcibly transfer' money from non-healthcare professional women to healthcare professional men. So a transfer from men to women. Do you believe investments in infrastructure (which create construction jobs) are a 'forcible transfer of wealth from women to men' simply because more men work in construction than women?

In terms of benefits, women get more simply because they live longer, on average. But both men and women have the same access to benefits, and many men will collect more benefits than women.

You may as well start complaining that the government is 'forcibly transferring wealth from smokers to non smokers', from diabetics to non diabetics, from blacks to whites etc.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
You are attempting to put forth a truth on averages as a truth on a rule, and it doesn't hold.

The argument of the programs disproportionately employing females is ridiculous because both men and women are free to work in health care, so there is no 'forcible transfer of wealth from men to women' simply because you spend money in that industry. For example, you could choose to work in healthcare and then those programs now 'forcibly transfer' money from non-healthcare professional women to healthcare professional men. So a transfer from men to women. Do you believe investments in infrastructure (which create construction jobs) are a 'forcible transfer of wealth from women to men' simply because more men work in construction than women?

In terms of benefits, women get more simply because they live longer, on average. But both men and women have the same access to benefits, and many men will collect more benefits than women.

You may as well start complaining that the government is 'forcibly transferring wealth from smokers to non smokers', from diabetics to non diabetics, from blacks to whites etc.
The women benefit more than the men because of affirmative action and other bs programs
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
the what the US Government spends on this program is a drop in the bucket to the amount of money we spend in feeding "starving" people over seas by either sending real money or by sending food.

our people first period.
I am sure more of the food we give to starving people in Africa is actually being eaten, but large portions of the school lunch program food is being trashed. They could at least donate the uneaten food to charity. Instead you have trash bins full of uneaten food.

I have no issue with spending money to feed children, my issue is spending money to buy food that will just be thrown away.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
WWJD?

Feed the children.
This is the really ironic part. The party of evangelical Christianity - a religion most fundamentally about serving others, especially the poor, powerless, and diseased, explicitly including lepers and whores - is also the one saying 'fuck the poor, they must be lazy.'
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
34,334
13,252
146
This is the really ironic part. The party of evangelical Christianity - a religion most fundamentally about serving others, especially the poor, powerless, and diseased, explicitly including lepers and whores - is also the one saying 'fuck the poor, they must be lazy.'
Brutal truth. OUR GOD IS ABOUT LOVE, BURN IN HELL SINNERS!!
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
The women benefit more than the men because of affirmative action and other bs programs
Any proof to that at all? If you walked into a hospital which didn't employ any affirmative action, do you think there'd be more male or female employees?
 

Theb

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
3,533
8
76
Republicans and Democrats would both be opposed to the plan for different reasons.

The difference is Republicans would oppose it because they oppose killing "babies".

Whereas Democrats would oppose it because they refuse to tell teenagers, drug addicts, etc what to do with their bodies.
Some people might even oppose it because it's insane and horrible.

WWJD?

Feed the children.
You don't think Jesus would be beating the drum for forced abortions? I mean as long as it saves money.

He might wash their feet, but only if they buy their own soap.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
34,334
13,252
146
Some people might even oppose it because it's insane and horrible.


You don't think Jesus would be beating the drum for forced abortions? I mean as long as it saves money.

He might wash their feet, but only if they buy their own soap.
nonsense, Jesus would create soap out of nothing.
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
Well said, Just another idiotic policy by barrack whosain obama
Why didn't your GOP gut the program when they had the chance in the mid 2000's??? newsflash...most sane people who are not bitter a-holes have no issue with food stamps
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,583
314
126
You are attempting to put forth a truth on averages as a truth on a rule, and it doesn't hold.

The argument of the programs disproportionately employing females is ridiculous because both men and women are free to work in health care, so there is no 'forcible transfer of wealth from men to women' simply because you spend money in that industry. For example, you could choose to work in healthcare and then those programs now 'forcibly transfer' money from non-healthcare professional women to healthcare professional men. So a transfer from men to women. Do you believe investments in infrastructure (which create construction jobs) are a 'forcible transfer of wealth from women to men' simply because more men work in construction than women?

In terms of benefits, women get more simply because they live longer, on average. But both men and women have the same access to benefits, and many men will collect more benefits than women.

You may as well start complaining that the government is 'forcibly transferring wealth from smokers to non smokers', from diabetics to non diabetics, from blacks to whites etc.
Thats far too logical an explanation :)

Perhaps you can tackle explaining to nehalem what the differency between pregnancy and birth is. My links to Wikipedia have failed miserably.
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
Interesting, so you do like having you money taken from you to pay for other peoples poor life choices? :hmm:
I have no magic eight ball or other divination to help me determine which of these children's parents are poor because of poor life choices and which are poor because they got the short end of the stick. I'd rather err on the side of helping the children of those that got the short end of the stick that also happens to help the children of those that made poor life choices. Especially in light of the fact that the children are not really the ones that made those poor life choices.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,508
21,599
146
what's the matter Incorruptible, no scary muslims in the news to get you all bothered right now?

have to go after the children?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
You are attempting to put forth a truth on averages as a truth on a rule, and it doesn't hold.

The argument of the programs disproportionately employing females is ridiculous because both men and women are free to work in health care, so there is no 'forcible transfer of wealth from men to women' simply because you spend money in that industry. For example, you could choose to work in healthcare and then those programs now 'forcibly transfer' money from non-healthcare professional women to healthcare professional men. So a transfer from men to women. Do you believe investments in infrastructure (which create construction jobs) are a 'forcible transfer of wealth from women to men' simply because more men work in construction than women?
My actual complaint was not with differential jobs it was with the benefits.

Although interesting. When men choose jobs that pay more liberals seem to have no problem whining about that be discrimination. But when women end up on top its fine.

In terms of benefits, women get more simply because they live longer, on average. But both men and women have the same access to benefits, and many men will collect more benefits than women.
So it would seem that if you value FAIRNESS that men should be able to collect those benefits earlier so that they on average will get the same benefits.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Some people might even oppose it because it's insane and horrible.


You don't think Jesus would be beating the drum for forced abortions? I mean as long as it saves money.

He might wash their feet, but only if they buy their own soap.
1.) No. Insanity is allowing 14 year old girls and drug addicts to have children.

2.) Interesting. I do not pretend to know what Jesus would do. But if he is anything like his father I am sure he would rain down fire on inner city ghettos like he did to Sodom and Gomorrah.

3.) I thought it was wrong to impose your religious beliefs on society?

I have no magic eight ball or other divination to help me determine which of these children's parents are poor because of poor life choices and which are poor because they got the short end of the stick. I'd rather err on the side of helping the children of those that got the short end of the stick that also happens to help the children of those that made poor life choices. Especially in light of the fact that the children are not really the ones that made those poor life choices.
And this is why you keep people who are too poor/stupid/crazy to raise children from having them in the first place.

You can still help those children that end up poor despite the best efforts of their parents.

But as the program in the story illustrates even bailouts are not enough. You need bailouts for the bailouts.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
what's the matter Incorruptible, no scary muslims in the news to get you all bothered right now?

have to go after the children?
The hypocrisy is amazing. If I post about radical islamists you get mad because I am criticizing your religion but if I dont post about it you still get mad. Typical leftist
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
My actual complaint was not with differential jobs it was with the benefits.

Although interesting. When men choose jobs that pay more liberals seem to have no problem whining about that be discrimination. But when women end up on top its fine.
Studies that adjust for chosen field/position still show a wage gap. I think there will always be a wage gap (and at this point we should actually expect a wage gap) but all you've done is simply put forward a strawman. I consider myself a Liberal in American terms, and I do not complain about a wage gap, would never site a source that didn't adjust for job/title, and consistently argue that today's wage gap is increasingly minimal.

So it would seem that if you value FAIRNESS that men should be able to collect those benefits earlier so that they on average will get the same benefits.
You don't value fairness, you just like to keep a men vs women tab, and ensure that in each category women is never > then men (but conveniently ignore the categories in the other direction). If you truly value fairness then black people should be able to collect those benefits earlier so that they on average will get the same benefits.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY