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.
Wow, I've seen some stupid $h|t since I started reading this forum, but I think this one fails the hardest. I'm pretty moderate and like to think I'm considerate and not dogmatic. Willing to look at both sides, and realizing there are pros and cons of each approach.
Having said that, this thread makes the liberal point of view look pretty bad.
As many as 17 million children nationwide are struggling with what is known as food insecurity. To put it another way, one in four children in the country is living without consistent access to enough nutritious food to live a healthy life, according to the study, "Map the Meal Child Food Insecurity 2011."
Those hungry children are everywhere, and with the uncertain economy, the numbers are only growing, experts say.
I am confused how can this be do they not get food stamps, welfare checks and other child charities. Maybe you should ask the parents of these children what they do with all the money they get every month from the government. I'm just saying if you going to ask the "tea party" what the plan is for child hunger clearly the governmnet is not doing a good job in feeding children. Thou I have yet to see many cases where Children as staving and living on the streets and living like they havent eaten in 1 day. Maybe you should ask what the parents are feeding them and what they consider healthy or maybe you would like the government to start restricting what "foods" to buy with food stamps. Are they eating apples or ceral and candy all day. If 17 million of these kids are in a school I know they get free lunch as per the government i suspect that has some nutritious foods in it though that is run by each state.
The better question would be this.. if individuals can feed people via another system with most of their money back in their pockets away from government programs which clearly FAIL as per your own Food insecurity maybe people can do it better then government. Tea party solution is really a society solution of which comes down to INDIVIDUALS who choose to make a difference on their own and is healthiness awareness is so important don;t ask government to do it.
Maybe you would like to educate the woman on welfare with 6 kids, another on the way and thinks healthy food comes from process container and has sugar in it. You know why healthy food is more expensive it is because government runs the food industry and makes junk food cheap! Soy, Corn and anything that government funds will be "cheaper"
Honestly Child food insecurity is another buzz word, another progressive solution to a problem only they themselves deem real. If its real and important to you have a choice find someone to sponsor and FEED them!
Get local communities to GROW, Green and sustainable gardens which poor people can help feed their children healthy choices if they want. If you want to help fund it via donatation and or "LOCAL TAXES" your welcome to try. See but they are not interested in solutions they just want more of your money for another governmnet program failing and never doing anything they say it DOES!
The people who care about children are not in government they are parents and people who collectively can work together for a goal. Examples would be childrens hositpals, children cancer research, childhood diseases, child disablities, child charities on education, grants, funds, and memorial services.
All work without government, solutions are found among people without force, without government failure and without the buzz words of the progressives who think government is their social and economic master.
All i did is ask a legitimate question a to hat the Tea Party stand on child hunger. No trolling a legitimate question and i get a lot of bunk from certain persons. Must be something wrong somewhere when i see so much smoke.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,407,463 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile
All i did is ask a legitimate question a to hat the Tea Party stand on child hunger. No trolling a legitimate question and i get a lot of bunk from certain persons. Must be something wrong somewhere when i see so much smoke.
The Tea Party has nothing to do with hunger of any kind. The premise (of your question) would seem to indicate that you believe that, if the TP, ascends to a majority in the legislative branch, that funds needed to help feed children would dry up - thus, children would go hungry. The federal government does a lousy job feeding and providing for people. This needs to be done at a local level by those non-governmental institutions that have been doing it successfully for centuries (church, religious/non-religious organizations, etc.). People do not go hungry in the US because food is not available to them - its there for them, the problem is more of logistics. How can we (not the gov) get it to them or get them to the food banks/soup kitchens? Seeing how most food pantries/kitchens aren't mobile - the onus is on those needing the food to go there and get it. There are some food deliveries done, but they are more expensive to operate.
All i did is ask a legitimate question a to hat the Tea Party stand on child hunger. No trolling a legitimate question and i get a lot of bunk from certain persons. Must be something wrong somewhere when i see so much smoke.
That's like asing what Code Pink, GLAAD and the New Black Panther Party are doing about child hunger.
They didn't form to address that any more than the Tea Party did.
Some of you crack me up. You seem to think that if the government doesn't provide for them that they will starve. What do you think churches, synagogues, mosques have been doing for centuries before governments took it upon themselves? These things are best done on a local level rather than a federal. Federal ownership of these things have helped kill our sense of community and neighborly compassion in our communities. Now, we have people walk by someone who is homeless and then they mutter to themselves, "Why isn't the gov. doing something". It is OUR job - not the governments - to love one another. Do it - and quit passing the buck off to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawg82
The Tea Party has nothing to do with hunger of any kind. The premise (of your question) would seem to indicate that you believe that, if the TP, ascends to a majority in the legislative branch, that funds needed to help feed children would dry up - thus, children would go hungry. The federal government does a lousy job feeding and providing for people. This needs to be done at a local level by those non-governmental institutions that have been doing it successfully for centuries (church, religious/non-religious organizations, etc.). People do not go hungry in the US because food is not available to them - its there for them, the problem is more of logistics. How can we (not the gov) get it to them or get them to the food banks/soup kitchens? Seeing how most food pantries/kitchens aren't mobile - the onus is on those needing the food to go there and get it. There are some food deliveries done, but they are more expensive to operate.
Actually, the reason we have nutrition programs in this country (in addition to helping farmers) is b/c these groups were not meeting all the needs.
The Tea Party uses fear and intimidation to achieve political goals. Some members of the Tea Party have threatened government officials and members of the media. The Tea Party is more like a terrorist group.
Really? Name some. Because threatening a government official is a crime.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,407,463 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Actually, the reason we have nutrition programs in this country (in addition to helping farmers) is b/c these groups were not meeting all the needs.
Nuitrition is the luxury of the well-to-do, not of the poor. The poor eat what they can, when they can. I've been there and done that (as a teen). To pile onto food pantries/soup kitchens regulatory nutrition laws robs only the poor and burdens those donating their time/$/resources. We have had local shelters stop giving out sandwiches to the homeless just because an Illinois regulation says that if you give out even simply sliced bread, you need to be categorized the same as a restuarant and go thru those inspections, fees, and building codes (bathrooms, firewalls, etc). We were just giving hungry folks a damned sandwich. Government is the problem - not the solution.
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.
