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.
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.
People have died from eating tainted food at church suppers. Also, this is not the topic of the thread.
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.
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.
You are just reading what you want into this. I only asked a question because i wanted to know. Some TPr's are a little paranoid. imo
Now you guys are making me think you are hiding something.
The Tea'd Partisans won't be able to change anything of significance, even if they ascended to power.
The necessity to scale back the federal budget by 93% will not occur. Which means when the government does collapse, we will experience a 100% roll back in government.
My reasons for expecting collapse:
[] Congress is borrowing 1,600 billion (2011) while paying interest of 206 billion. If I were an investor in government securities, I would be very very wary. The odds of getting back one's principal are nil.
[] If people start withdrawing from the FICA, the "dollar bill" will be undercapitalized and Congress will be doubly [expletive deleted].
[] Without capital and authority from "voluntary" contributors, the Federal government won't be able to "borrow". Which they have to do, in order to authorize new "dollar bills" under Title 12 USC Sec. 411.
[] In the event that new borrowing ends, the "dollar bill" supply goes static, and the huge demand for liquidity of the outstanding accounts will cause bank runs and market price collapses that will be cataclysmic. 90% loss or more, of "paper wealth".
[] Fed Res M1, M2 figures show how little "paper money" is actually in circulation. The "dollar bill" value of the country is wholly out of proportion with actual "dollar bills" in print. And they're NOT MONEY - but repudiated IOUs (worthless).
{M1 (2011 July) = 2 trillion, or $6389 per capita}
[] If your 401K or investments are greater than $6389, guess what your chances are of cashing out?
[] And since those Federal Reserve Notes have no par value, since 1933, you've basically been [expletive deleted] to the nth degree.
[] Fort Knox depository holds approx. 147.4 million ounces (allegedly) of gold bullion.
By law, that computes to 2.9 billion dollars (real money) or $9.26 per capita. (Computing the price in "dollar bills" is futile - since "dollar bills" are IOUs denominated in gold dollars)
Now, I may not be the brightest light bulb, but it's plain that "the system" can't prevail much longer without collapsing.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,408,773 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile
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.
You are just reading what you want into this. I only asked a question because i wanted to know. Some TPr's are a little paranoid. imo
Now you guys are making me think you are hiding something.
Not a TP'er, but a sympathizer. I'm a Ron Paul guy (the original TP'er, I guess). Not paranoid at all. From what you wrote on your opening seems to be what I addressed. The title alone would indicate this. If i am wrong, please clarify what you meant?
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,408,773 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
People have died from eating tainted food at church suppers. Also, this is not the topic of the thread.
People have died from food inspected by the FDA. My post does reflect the topic. TP'ers plans for the hungry child - let the people feed one another. We do it better than the government and more compassionately.
" What are the Tea Party plans about child hunger?"
Maybe to repeal the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which makes child labor illegal. Then kids can, once again, work in factories to earn money to buy food.
Not a TP'er, but a sympathizer. I'm a Ron Paul guy (the original TP'er, I guess). Not paranoid at all. From what you wrote on your opening seems to be what I addressed. The title alone would indicate this. If i am wrong, please clarify what you meant?
Just wanted to see some opinions of what the TP thinks of child hunger.
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.
Tea Party people do have something to do with child hunger. They are Americans too and the problem is all of ours. Tea Party was rising in power and if they tell the freshmen to not vote on something then they are not supposed to. Thus i wanted opinions.
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.
