Taxpayers On The Hook To Feed Children

[dainthomas]

If it's so cheap, then the parents can feed the kids. After all it is their responsibility, not the government's.

Otherwise the cycle of dependency and poverty will just keep repeating itself. But then again, that's what democrats have designed and implemented - literal enslavement of entire generations.

I can't stand people (liberal or conservative) who advocate adherence to their political philosophy even in such cases where there can be shown to either be no benefit, or actually cause harm.

Basically, you'd prefer the school district spend MORE money verifying incomes than they spend on the actual lunches, all to meet your nebulous goal of not subjecting kids to "literal enslavement" (whatever the hell that means).

 

[Wreckem]

Probably something like the CHIPS program. (Another one of O'Bummers Projects)

SCHIP started under Clinton. And it was reauthorized by W, and then reauthorized by Obama with a very slight expansion funded entirely by tobacco tax increases(tax increases on top of Bush's tax increases in the 2007 re authorization act).

I worked in a Congressional Office during that time. I remember people calling and complaining about possible increases to tobacco taxes. Later they would call and complain about CHIP possibly being axed.

Although your post clearly highlights conservatives opinion on healthcare. They dont want any healthcare. Not for the poor, not for poor children, and not for the elderly. Its the classical I've got mine so fuck you attitude.

 

[Juddog]

So what? Feeding kids is some terrible thing? You'd support all the corporate welfare and military spending in the world, but feeding kids is some heinous abuse of taxpayer money? Get some fucking perspective.

Didn't you know? The rightwing / GOP only wants to force the kids to be born (e.g. abortion or birth control is bad); afterwards they have to fend for themselves, even if it means starving to death.

 

[nehalem256]

Didn't you know? The rightwing / GOP only wants to force the kids to be born (e.g. abortion or birth control is bad); afterwards they have to fend for themselves, even if it means starving to death.

Well considering that the argument has been advanced in this thread that red states are filled with hypocrites why should it be surprised that their views are so out of touch with reality?

 

[werepossum]

I can't stand people (liberal or conservative) who advocate adherence to their political philosophy even in such cases where there can be shown to either be no benefit, or actually cause harm.

Basically, you'd prefer the school district spend MORE money verifying incomes than they spend on the actual lunches, all to meet your nebulous goal of not subjecting kids to "literal enslavement" (whatever the hell that means).

I very much suspect that would be the case. Plus government is simply not capable of anything like instant verification; it would have to be paperwork based on the individual's word, so it probably wouldn't save much.

Incidentally while I'm sure these programs have been greatly expanded - we do have a liberal President and we are in the middle of a pretty severe recession even if we're borrowing and spending to cover it up - they greatly predate Obama. A decade or so ago I did a study to determine why one particular school used so much more electricity than other, similar schools. One big reason was that this school served not one but THREE meals a day. It also did a summer lunch program - which was funny because one welfare rancher interviewed said "I think it's a good idea 'cause sometimes I forget to make they lunch." She must have been three hundred pounds; it's a damn safe bet SHE never forgot to Hoover down a plate or three.

Time was a woman totally supported by welfare would have been too embarrassed to admit that with no work responsibilities she still couldn't even be bothered to feed her own herd of livestock. Unfortunately, nowadays we provide the food and then have to provide it again AND prepare it to avoid hungry children. I think we're solving the wrong problem, but unless and until we're willing to take away hungry children from their irresponsible welfare mothers, it's best to feed the little darlings.

 

[michal1980]

Hungry kids need it, so it should exist.

Liberals and responsbility.

like oil and water.

A parent feeding their own kid, talk about a foreign concept.

 

[spidey07]

Liberals and responsbility.

like oil and water.

A parent feeding their own kid, talk about a foreign concept.

But the parents are poor! They don't have any money for food* or to feed their children!

*Actually, food stamps increase dramatically when you add a child and even more depending on how many. That money is given to them by tax payers to feed their children. There is simply no reason to provide free breakfast, lunch, dinner and take home weekend meals.

 

[Juddog]

But the parents are poor! They don't have any money for food* or to feed their children!

*Actually, food stamps increase dramatically when you add a child and even more depending on how many. That money is given to them by tax payers to feed their children. There is simply no reason to provide free breakfast, lunch, dinner and take home weekend meals.

If they don't have enough money to feed their future children, why are you so against them getting an abortion in the first place so that they don't have to feed their future children? Serious question.

 

[spidey07]

If they don't have enough money to feed their future children, why are you so against them getting an abortion in the first place so that they don't have to feed their future children? Serious question.

I'm very pro choice.

And you're missing the point, there is no reason they don't have enough money to feed their children because of food stamps. They can't not have enough money to feed their kids, we give it to them to feed their kids.

 

[classy]

Yes, and the damage is far reaching.

1) Parents are conditioned to not feed their kids, hey - somebody else (government) will feed them why should I pay for their food?
2) Kids grow up dependent on government for every need
3) Kid then realizes the best way to keep the government money flowing is to have multiple kids out of wedlock, this is of course taught by the parents
4) Multigenerational poverty enslavement by liberal policies is complete.

It doesn't matter how, who, or why. The humane thing to do is, is to feed the children. *******

 

[classy]

Liberals and responsbility.

like oil and water.

A parent feeding their own kid, talk about a foreign concept.

So what is your plan? Don't feed the kids till they get better parents? Seriously, thats your plan?

 

[Svnla]

Further, why the hell are Republicans whining about this??

Percentage of students with free or reduced lunches by state, 2011
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_044.asp
I took the time to put it in Excel and sort.

State ranking:
50: Mississippi 68.4%
49: Louisiana 64.9%
48: New Mexico 62.9%
47: Alaska 57.1%
46: Oklahoma 56.3%
45: Georgia 53.0%

Lowest rates (the other end)
1: New Hampshire 20.5%
2: New Jersey 30.1%
3: Connecticut 30.7%
4: Massachussetts 30.7%

Uhhh, wtf?! Kids in Republican states are getting free and reduced lunches, while the Republicans are blaming the Democrats for this and calling it a waste of money?!

I don't know much about other states but I am fairly familiar with MS and LA since I grew up in the southern part of US for the last 20+ years.

I think it is more of demographic, especially number of minority (LA and MS are two states with the highest rate). Also, both of those states have a lot, nope, A LOT of poor folks, as a matter of fact, MS (20%) and LA (18.3%) are at the bottom ten of income level the last time I check.

Let check other states on your list: NM = 17.9%, OK = 15.6%, GA = 14.4%. All of those states have higher than US average (12.6%) for poverty with the exception of AK - 10.0% (not sure if the yearly oil and gas tipspent has anything to do with it or not).

The other side: NH = 5.6% (lowest in the US), NJ = 6.8% (2nd lowest), CT = 9.3% (9th lowest), MA = 10.1% (14th lowest). All of them have lower than average rate of poverty.

Since 1900, LA overwhelmingly voted D as their governor until recently (since 1980 - 4 D and 4 R). Very similar outcome for MS.

I don't think party affliciation has much to do with free lunch but rather the poverty rate. Just look at DC, they are overwhelmingly D yet they are even worse than LA and MS in most categories.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Reminds me of the old joke: conservatives believe the right to life begins at conception -- and ends at birth.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Reminds me of the old joke: conservatives believe the right to life begins at conception -- and ends at birth.

hehe Sounds pretty accurate to the drivel I keep reading on this board.

 

[shadow9d9]

Further, why the hell are Republicans whining about this??

Percentage of students with free or reduced lunches by state, 2011
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_044.asp
I took the time to put it in Excel and sort.

State ranking:
50: Mississippi 68.4%
49: Louisiana 64.9%
48: New Mexico 62.9%
47: Alaska 57.1%
46: Oklahoma 56.3%
45: Georgia 53.0%

Lowest rates (the other end)
1: New Hampshire 20.5%
2: New Jersey 30.1%
3: Connecticut 30.7%
4: Massachussetts 30.7%

Uhhh, wtf?! Kids in Republican states are getting free and reduced lunches, while the Republicans are blaming the Democrats for this and calling it a waste of money?!

Republicans routinely fight against their own best interest.

 

[nehalem256]

Republicans routinely fight against their own best interest.

It is called principles. Some people do not believe they are entitled to other people's money... or at least are willing to pretend that

 

[dainthomas]

So what is your plan? Don't feed the kids till they get better parents? Seriously, thats your plan?

Lol, sounds like it.

 

[spidey07]

So what is your plan? Don't feed the kids till they get better parents? Seriously, thats your plan?

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.

 

[nehalem256]

So what is your plan? Don't feed the kids till they get better parents? Seriously, thats your plan?

The common sense solution would be to keep certain people from having children.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2262901

We should start with 14 year old girls.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

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.

You do realize that the incremental food stamp benefit of an adult+kids versus an adult doesn't come close to covering the cost of taking care of a kid removed from his/her parents?

How about the impact on the kids of being taken away from their parents? I thought right-wingers cared about the family?

Hilarious to see how poorly thought-out conservative "solutions" are to problems.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The common sense solution would be to keep certain people from having children.

Thank you, Dr. Mengele.

I'll keep this in mind next time you complain about how much "liberals hate freedom".

 

[nehalem256]

Thank you, Dr. Mengele.

I'll keep this in mind next time you complain about how much "liberals hate freedom".

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

For a person 18 years of age or older, that person need only have a valid form of identification.
For persons aging 16 years old and 17 years old, a parent or legal guardian must be present and have a valid form of identification. (**Note: it is preferable if both the parent and the minor have valid identification but this is not required**)
For persons 15 years old and younger, these people may not be pierced according to law, with the exception of ear piercing. (**Note: Even though ears are exempt from the law you still must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian to be pierced.**)

 

[bfdd]

what i find most laughable about this is people are "ok" with the Government feeding them, but a few years ago were flipping out over what the Government was feeding them.

 

[Juddog]

what i find most laughable about this is people are "ok" with the Government feeding them, but a few years ago were flipping out over what the Government was feeding them.

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.

 

[hal2kilo]

Lol, sounds like it.

Are there no work houses?