Taxpayers On The Hook To Feed Children

[Pr0d1gy]

Because forcing people to work to support others is not using us as slave labor?

I know this may be shocking to you, so you may want to sit down......























We ALL PAY TAXES, NOT JUST YOU.


idiot

 

[actuarial]

You keep thinking that they dont want the child though. But if that is true why did they have it?

This has already been asked an answered.

Because there is clearly not authoritarian about not my money to give to idiots to subsidized their poor life choices

Even if you consider a social safety net authoritarian it is many, many degrees less so. It must be really hard to be you: there's nowhere in the world where people aren't under the thumbs of authoritarian rules charging them taxes and such.

So we should just stick the abortions then.

When are you going to come up with a solution that's not pure fantasy.

I've got a new solution for you: let's just replace all workers with robots, share all profits equally, and then no one will be poor and no one will have to work.

 

[nehalem256]

I know this may be shocking to you, so you may want to sit down......

We ALL PAY TAXES, NOT JUST YOU.


idiot

Because forcing people to work to support others is not using us as slave labor?

I did not realize that word "people" referred to just me.

So the questions is why do you want to pay taxes, so that women, and you, can have a worse life? Why do you hate everyone so much?

 

[desy]

You live in a society
You may overbenefit in some areas or not use some services ever but for everyones sake they exist.

The balance is what is or isn't to be included as a feature that your tax bill supports

 

[werepossum]

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!

Yeah, I've been in one home owned free and clear where every time I went in I picked up multiple fleas and a couple others where I'd go home and shower afterwards just from being so near general filth.

 

[werepossum]

I know this may be shocking to you, so you may want to sit down......























We ALL PAY TAXES, NOT JUST YOU.


idiot

He has a point though. Forcing other people to work to support you is a hell of a lot closer to slavery than is demanding you pull your own weight if you are able. The very definition of slavery involves forced labor for someone else's benefit; it does NOT include corporations no matter how much you hate them.

EDIT: The fact that you pay a small of amount of your government-redistributed largess really isn't germane since you're paying those taxes in money taken from someone else and given to you by government. As an example, if I rob you of your car and $100 and then give you five bucks for cab fare home, can I really claim credit for my charity?

 

[nehalem256]

You live in a society
You may overbenefit in some areas or not use some services ever but for everyones sake they exist.

The balance is what is or isn't to be included as a feature that your tax bill supports

Services to bail out stupid people exist only to bail out stupid people. They do not exist for everyone sake.

 

[nehalem256]

Even if you consider a social safety net authoritarian it is many, many degrees less so. It must be really hard to be you: there's nowhere in the world where people aren't under the thumbs of authoritarian rules charging them taxes and such.

Taxes can be used for authoritarian and non-authoritarian purposes.

When are you going to come up with a solution that's not pure fantasy.

It is not pure fantasy. And as I pointed out the most populous country in the world lives under similar rules.

And actually the mandatory adoption+child support option actually is more workable than I had previously stated. Your assumption is that people would continue to pop out children KNOWING they will have to give it up and pay child support. We are in a sense greatly incentivizing abortion.

EDIT: And if they cannot pay enough child support, you can always take it out of their SS later on.

 

[dmcowen674]

Taxpayers On The Hook To Feed Children


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...unch-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?

Children should starve

Sick should die

This is the Republican Mantra and what the people want, it is what the people will get.

 

[Incorruptible]

Children should starve

Sick should die

This is the Republican Mantra and what the people want, it is what the people will get.

I finally agree with you!

 

[monovillage]

Children should starve

Sick should die

This is the Republican Mantra and what the people want, it is what the people will get.

This Republican spends a lot more feeding poor children then what the government demands, but since I spend my own money doing it the money is spent intelligently and almost 100% of it actually goes to feeding hungry children.

The government takes the money in taxes, then pays off their supporters, pays off big corporations, pays off the unions and then lets a small amount trickle down to the hungry children. The real problem isn't that tax money is used to feed hungry children, but that such a small amount finally makes it to a place where it can do some good, the rest is used as a bribe for the scum people that feed on the government teat.

 

[actuarial]

Taxes can be used for authoritarian and non-authoritarian purposes.

As long as there's some kind of wealth transfer apparently not. It would be forcibly taking your money to give it to another.

It is not pure fantasy. And as I pointed out the most populous country in the world lives under similar rules.

No country lives under these rules (China's limits are still less authoritarian than what you suggest). And even if they were the same, trying to push communist policies in a country that can't even open it's arms to UHC is fantasy.

And actually the mandatory adoption+child support option actually is more workable than I had previously stated. Your assumption is that people would continue to pop out children KNOWING they will have to give it up and pay child support. We are in a sense greatly incentivizing abortion.

EDIT: And if they cannot pay enough child support, you can always take it out of their SS later on.

There is already a great incentive not to have kids/have an abortion (it may not be a specific government incentive, but we've both agreed there are serious consequences to teenaged pregnancy) and people still make the bad decision anyways.

There's no IF about their inability to pay. We know they cannot pay for it, otherwise they wouldn't be getting government benefits. And even if these people accrued substantial SS benefits (which is unlikely) there's still no way it's going to cover the cost and you don't receive the money until years in the future.

Your program would also take kids away from people who could afford the kid and don't collect government benefits.

 

[nehalem256]

As long as there's some kind of wealth transfer apparently not. It would be forcibly taking your money to give it to another.

No country lives under these rules (China's limits are still less authoritarian than what you suggest). And even if they were the same, trying to push communist policies in a country that can't even open it's arms to UHC is fantasy.

Its not a communist policy. It is a common sense policy.

There is already a great incentive not to have kids/have an abortion (it may not be a specific government incentive, but we've both agreed there are serious consequences to teenaged pregnancy) and people still make the bad decision anyways.

There's no IF about their inability to pay. We know they cannot pay for it, otherwise they wouldn't be getting government benefits. And even if these people accrued substantial SS benefits (which is unlikely) there's still no way it's going to cover the cost and you don't receive the money until years in the future.

Your program would also take kids away from people who could afford the kid and don't collect government benefits.

So you are arguing that women will bear the child for 9 months knowing they will have to give it up and pay child support. Wow, you really think women are morons don't you?

And then considering how you want women to have a worse life the only logical conclusion is that you hate women

Although, if women are as stupid as you say, how is that an argument against mandatory abortions exactly?

And for the bold, no, that is exactly the opposite of what it would do.

 

[actuarial]

Its not a communist policy. It is a common sense policy.

It's a common sense policy to limit every US couple to only 1 birth?

So you are arguing that women will bear the child for 9 months knowing they will have to give it up and pay child support. Wow, you really think women are morons don't you?

Women already bear the child knowing they are going to have to feed, clothe and raise it. And I think lots of people are morons, but I don't think 'women' are morons because I wouldn't extrapolate a subset of people making poor decisions to some categorical class.

And then considering how you want women to have a worse life the only logical conclusion is that you hate women

Although, if women are as stupid as you say, how is that an argument against mandatory abortions exactly?

Why do I want women to have a worse life again? I don't want anyone to have a baby as a teenager (far from it). Defending one's right to do something does not equate with wanting it to happen. It is always fun watching you project misogyny on others though.

And for the bold, no, that is exactly the opposite of what it would do.

Your suggestion is not based on means, but rather age. I know people who had a kid at 17 and haven't collected a dime of government money.

 

[nehalem256]

It's a common sense policy to limit every US couple to only 1 birth?

Note my use of the word "similar".

Why do I want women to have a worse life again? I don't want anyone to have a baby as a teenager (far from it). Defending one's right to do something does not equate with wanting it to happen. It is always fun watching you project misogyny on others though.

By refusing to have them get a mandatory abortion you are consigning them to a worse life. In fact you are consigning everyone to a worse life since we have to pay for the consequences.

It an "everyone loses" situation

Your suggestion is not based on means, but rather age. I know people who had a kid at 17 and haven't collected a dime of government money.

Age was a start. And no there is no one, whose parents are not Mitt Romney, who can raise a child at 17 without government money. No WIC, no food stamps, no section 8, no Medicaid, no EITC. Yeah not happening.

 

[nehalem256]

He has a point though. Forcing other people to work to support you is a hell of a lot closer to slavery than is demanding you pull your own weight if you are able. The very definition of slavery involves forced labor for someone else's benefit; it does NOT include corporations no matter how much you hate them.

I am actually not even demanding that. I simply demanding that they not create MORE weight for others to pull.

 

[CitizenKain]

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.

So why is a bad thing for women to have jobs? So, do you hate women because you think they are inferior to you, or because you feel inferior to them?

 

[nehalem256]

So why is a bad thing for women to have jobs?

Because it increases unemployment and decreases wages. That is simple economics.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Because it increases unemployment and decreases wages. That is simple economics.

And denies them the oppotunity to escape misogynists such as yourself...

 

[nehalem256]

And denies them the oppotunity to escape misogynists such as yourself...

Acknowledging reality is not "misogyny".

 

[Xecuter]

Because it increases unemployment and decreases wages. That is simple economics.

Rights be damned! I have an economy to run here...

 

[berzerker60]

Because it increases unemployment and decreases wages. That is simple economics.

So why stop there? Why not just let one person per ten thousand citizens in the country work? Full employment today, and imagine the wages they'd make!

 

[nehalem256]

Rights be damned! I have an economy to run here...

So why stop there? Why not just let one person per ten thousand citizens in the country work? Full employment today, and imagine the wages they'd make!

I never proposed a law against women working. I said they should not have been enocuraged to do so.

And the real problem is that liberals like to whine about wages going down since the 1970s when their values are to blame.

Gee I wonder why. Seems clear we have a workforce participation bubble to me that began in the *gasp* 1970s. And that nicely correlates with the decrease/stagnation in which seen since then.

 

[desy]

No corporate globalization is too blame
You know the people who care so deeply about your family until it messes with stockholder dividends

 

[CitizenKain]

And the real problem is that liberals like to whine about wages going down since the 1970s when their values are to blame.

Yes, liberal values like "women aren't property" sure are to blame.

Its funny how its always "liberal" values that cause divorces and children out of wedlock, but rightwingers certainly seem to do both a lot. Maybe its actually their fault?