Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think this is the right idea..... Instead of putting us versus them for school lunches, why not just feed all of the kids like most places in the world?
I dont think its the federal governments or the schools place to feed all the kids.
I dont see the need for this program. Its a waste of money.
The SNAP program allows about $1.50 per person per meal. Do you really not see the need to supplement that measly sum with free meals when they are available? The reason the poor are frequently obese isn't necessarily caused by overeating. Starches are cheaper than produce and lean meats. Poor neighborhoods are often food deserts, where grocery chains fear to tread. That leaves the residents little choice beyond expensive bodegas and convenience stores.
The federal government has not added funds to the TNAF program since 1997.
Another news flash, growing up in poverty does not doom a child to a life of failure, or one without loving parents. Even Dr. Ben Carson, the conservative darling, admits his mother relied on food stamps when he was a child. Somehow, he doesn't feel the children of today should be so fortunate. Mitt Romney, another hypocrite, forgets his own father relied on welfare until he found success.
Originally Posted by Terryj I put myself through college via the G.I. Bill and worked evenings to help pay for my college, no student loans. Yes, it paid off, I do remember where my roots were and where I came from, thanks to the life lessons from my dad and the values that he instilled in me, I'm satisfied at where I'm at today. It wasn't easy, it was a lot of hard work and the determination to make something of myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24
So... the taxpayers put you through college.
Oh good golly. In order to be able to use the G.I Bill you have to be a G.I. Which means you have to have put your life and limb on the line to defend the lives and freedoms of us Americans. Which means we, American citizens, PAID him for his services. He EARNED the G.I. Bill by being a soldier. He performed a SERVICE for the taxpayer, and was compensated accordingly. This wasn't a free handout or a grant.
I dont think its the federal governments or the schools place to feed all the kids.
I dont see the need for this program. Its a waste of money.
Why not? There are certain things that we all need and we all pay for such as the military, schools, roads, clean food/water, etc.
My point is that if schools fed all of the kids lunch during the school year this would be less of an issue as all kids would get the same level of care.
In regards to when kids are out of school.... I agree 100% with you. While your ideas of work camps and sterilization are extreme, I believe there is some merit but zero chance of it being implemented.
Why not look at the low hanging fruit..... We should only be supporting our own citizens. I think this is something that most Dems and Republicans can agree on.
So in theory, in your "survival of the fittest only" world, any and all charitable efforts should be discouraged, regardless of who funds them right? Guessing we should get rid of other "detrimental" programs like Special Education, and why in the heck are we looking for a cancer cure? Just let those weak links die already. //sarcasm
Sorry, that is not the world I want, nor is it in step with the history of our country.
Look, I don't know what to tell you. Reality is sometimes harsh, and life isn't always fair. People get handed bad lots in life, and they die. We just can't feed everybody, all the time, forever. It's just not possible. Unicorns don't exist, no matter how wonderful they are and how much you want them to. "My" survival of the fittest world is the one we live in, and there's nothing you or I can do to change that, it's just how it is.
Of course I'm not saying charitable efforts should be discouraged, or we should get rid of Special Education, or stop looking to cure cancer. Those are great things to do. What I'm telling you is that all the charity in the world won't cure poverty. All the Special Education in the world won't turn a child with learning disabilities into a brain surgeon. We could cure cancer, but then some other disease will crop up and start killing us. We do the best we can, but don't fool yourself into thinking that if we all just try a little harder, then the problem can be solved once and for all. It can't. It can be made a little better, but that's about it.
What I'm trying to say, is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Programs for feeding children are great. But if you start to go overboard with the programs, and to make sure every single kid out there gets every single calorie he needs, then they are going to create even more kids who need food handed to them and we then feed them and they create even more, and you WILL get to a point where trying to feed all the kids is HURTING the rest of us to the point where you are doing more damage than good. That's what we're trying to avoid.
When you are looking at programs to help those in need, it's very easy to only look at the "need" side. This is what they "need", so this is what the program should be. People often forget to look at the other side, the "what can we afford to give without shooting ourselves in the foot" side. And in this country, if you look at the ratio of the national debt to GDP, (104% in 2015) it's very very glaringly obvious that we have reached the point where if we do any more than we are already doing, we are absolutely shooting ourselves in the foot. We may have gone past it already.
Edited to add: in case you don't know what a 104% debt to GDP ratio means, let me explain it real quick. If every American paid in taxes 100% of their income for a whole year, as in every single cent you and everyone earned went to the government all year long, including all the Richie rich 1 percenters, we still wouldn't pay off the national debt. And why is that important? About half of it is retirement funds for Americans. Social security and pensions, that can't be paid out unless that debt gets paid. And as our debt grows, our interest payments grow, and eventually our entire revenue will be eaten up by interest payments. We are in it up to our eyeballs, and that's a fact.
All that aside, please explain how a hungry child is biologically endangering the species if helped to survive (or helped to thrive), but an adult with a disease which may have genetic components is not.
I'm not fooling myself into thinking poverty or poor choices will ever be completely solved. I am saying that ignoring it and hoping it goes away because it's a problem I cannot comprehend happening to me (as opposed to developing cancer for instance), is not a viable option.
Why not look at the low hanging fruit..... We should only be supporting our own citizens. I think this is something that most Dems and Republicans can agree on.
And that's the way it works. Illegals are not eligible for welfare benefits, including SNAP. Next?
Look, I don't know what to tell you. Reality is sometimes harsh, and life isn't always fair. People get handed bad lots in life, and they die. We just can't feed everybody, all the time, forever. It's just not possible. Unicorns don't exist, no matter how wonderful they are and how much you want them to. "My" survival of the fittest world is the one we live in, and there's nothing you or I can do to change that, it's just how it is.
Of course I'm not saying charitable efforts should be discouraged, or we should get rid of Special Education, or stop looking to cure cancer. Those are great things to do. What I'm telling you is that all the charity in the world won't cure poverty. All the Special Education in the world won't turn a child with learning disabilities into a brain surgeon. We could cure cancer, but then some other disease will crop up and start killing us. We do the best we can, but don't fool yourself into thinking that if we all just try a little harder, then the problem can be solved once and for all. It can't. It can be made a little better, but that's about it.
What I'm trying to say, is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Programs for feeding children are great. But if you start to go overboard with the programs, and to make sure every single kid out there gets every single calorie he needs, then they are going to create even more kids who need food handed to them and we then feed them and they create even more, and you WILL get to a point where trying to feed all the kids is HURTING the rest of us to the point where you are doing more damage than good. That's what we're trying to avoid.
When you are looking at programs to help those in need, it's very easy to only look at the "need" side. This is what they "need", so this is what the program should be. People often forget to look at the other side, the "what can we afford to give without shooting ourselves in the foot" side. And in this country, if you look at the ratio of the national debt to GDP, (104% in 2015) it's very very glaringly obvious that we have reached the point where if we do any more than we are already doing, we are absolutely shooting ourselves in the foot. We may have gone past it already.
Edited to add: in case you don't know what a 104% debt to GDP ratio means, let me explain it real quick. If every American paid in taxes 100% of their income for a whole year, as in every single cent you and everyone earned went to the government all year long, including all the Richie rich 1 percenters, we still wouldn't pay off the national debt. And why is that important? About half of it is retirement funds for Americans. Social security and pensions, that can't be paid out unless that debt gets paid. And as our debt grows, our interest payments grow, and eventually our entire revenue will be eaten up by interest payments. We are in it up to our eyeballs, and that's a fact.
The average family size of those receiving benefits includes 1.8 children, exactly the same as the rest of the population. Obviously, you haven't read the links I posted. And that is despite the fact that while birth control may be available free of charge, it doesn't come in the mail. You must show up at one of the 600 Planned Parenthood sites in the US even if the closest one is 50 miles away and there is no public transportation.
If we cut corporate tax breaks and special interest spending, there would be plenty of money to support our most vulnerable citizens.
Ah yes, the Oliver Twist solution. Because that's worked so well.
I forgot which poster I was addressing. My fault.
I hope this post is not deleted because it demonstrates civility: No problem, you are at at fault, I do not expect you to hang on my every word...lots of posts....it happens.
I never even heard of this one.. until the government in my state is kicking
this off.. evidently it's already in place in most cities around the country.
Well, by all means we should never feed hungry children because, well...we all know how much better they turn out if they grow up malnourished
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
