trump to hungry: Let them eat "whatever."

I taught school for more than three decades.

You're right about neglectful parents. Sometimes drugs and alcohol have a higher priority than feeding the kids.

 

If you feel that way...you ought really stop calling me childish...or suggesting that I am acting like a little boy.

YOU are the one who thinks that to be wrong. YOU should not be doing it.

 

Won't work. There isn't enough money down on the lower taxable income side to make up for what wouldn't be collected on the upper income side.

The tax system is set up such that the ultra-rich at the top and are paying a way disproportionately higher chunk than those on the low side. A flat tax wouldn't balance it out. It'd be far less paid by the top tier, and not even almost enough collected from the bottom tiers to offset the difference.

The ultra rich would LOVE a flat tax, but it would collapse the system.

 

Yeah, sure--a guy who favors school and medical vouchers, a strong defense, business tax cuts, etc. is a liberal. I suppose everyone looks "left" to a fascist.

 

YOU are the one who suggested I was too intellectually challenged to understand your sarcasm. That was childish.

 

Thank you for sharing your opinions about society.

Mine differ from yours.

I'll stick with mine...and would be mortified if any ever mistakenly thought I think like you on these issues.

 

Looks like the Michelle Obama Diet for kids.

WHERE IS THE MEAT!​

Not just meat for nutrition but, sustenance - as a source of energy.

What poor kids get least is
good quality beef, chicken freshly prepared.
What I see in the picture is too much rabbit food!

 

It isn't? Then why is there such a thing as affirmative action?

 

I said what I had to say in reply to what you said.

If it is triggering you...tough. Perhaps you ought not to read what I write...or to respond to what I write.

 

That's an excellent idea. I'll ignore you and you ignore me.

 

True. That's just salad. Meat and other stuff is somewhere else.. didn't fit in that picture.

 

Oh, so you said you are below the poverty line, therefore you are too poor to help others? Was that what you meant? But are you really too poor? How much extra would it cost you per year to have a homeless person live with you?

Sorry to hear that you hurt your knee. I hope it gets well soon.

If you will notice, I have not insulted you once in our conversation. The reverse is not true. I have asked questions of you to determine if your compassion is genuine. Apparently that sent you into insult mode. Think about that.

 

Um, if you're having a hard time putting enough food on the table to feed your kids,mom , I think I might have an idea where the food's going before it hits the table.

 

Then it's not a flat tax.

I prefer a VAT with a rebate to the poverty level and no income tax.

 

You're all heart--raising taxes on poor people. You could have worked for Herbert Hoover.

 

Welfare does not give them dignity. It does give them diabetes! It is entertaining to call someone a "jerk" in the same post you are acting like one. The pot and the kettle had a similar exchange!

 

Meat Picture, please

I hope WHOLE Milk is offered too.


I do believe schools did a better job when districts
bought their own food stuffs and often from local sources
making the food, fresher.
GWTW
Creeping Federal Gov't! Like deja vu all over again.

 

I would prefer those things be taken care of through voluntary charity.

Well, societal government already does that - it may be stretching it to say that you personally will do that.

Fair enough. We have probably gone past the point of no return.

 

What could be more fair than everyone paying the same rate?

 

Sure, often.

Do you have a better solution than feeding hungry kids when they walk in the school house door? I'd like to work over the parents, but it's not allowed.

I'm interested in helping the child. Assessing blame is another matter.

My point to @US Conservative was that there are hungry kids.

 

A flat tax would crash the system. A crash would probably be unfair to a great many people.

 

We wouldn't be having this discussion if private charity worked.

 

Since 2008, the top 10 farm subsidy recipients each received an average of $18.2 million – that’s $1.8 million annually, $150,000 per month, or $35,000 a week. With the median household income of $60,000 a year, these farmers received more than 30 times the average yearly income of U.S. families. The farm subsidies are intended to help guarantee farmers a significant portion of their income in case of poor yields or declines in prices. Food stamps are intended to help guarantee that poor Americans can get some food assistance even with limited means.

In Humphrey's County, Mississippi for example, this means that a farmer can receive hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in subsidies. A family can receive less than $200 monthly in food stamp benefits.

From 1933 and the New Deal plan through the 1964 Lyndon Johnson War on Poverty, there's been a concentrated effort to provide an essential safety net for the poorest among us. Making sure that Americans can eat (food stamps), can make enough to get by (minimum wage) and, have access to healthcare (Medicaid), are ideas that generally we support.

Freeloaders. Welfare Queens. Abuse. Fraud. Working the system. And most of all, lazy and irresponsible. Whatever you call it, there has been a steady drumbeat of stories and misinformation that overstates and stereotypes the negative elements of government programs that help others, and understates the fact that these programs, by and large, help people.

If you are conservative, you may think this kind of help is simply a government handout. It might help people, but it does so only in a way that leads to dependence. If you are progressive, you think this kind of help offers a hand-up. In this instance, the government is trying to help someone get off the mat by providing temporary assistance. If you are a recipient of aid, you might even think of this kind of help as a pair of handcuffs.

When a mother has to choose a lower paying job because a slightly higher paying one would result in a loss of food stamps for her children, then there is clearly an issue in the guidelines of the system. This mother has to limit her own long-term mobility for short-term security. If we only go on thinking the worst of people, then we design ugly solutions.

 

I'm not criticizing the practice of feeding kids at school. It's a good thing.

What I am criticising is people who put all the blame on "the system", and none on the personal responsibility failings of hungry kid's parents.

Personal responsibility and accountability is another matter that often gets completely ignored.

And again, that's mostly NOT a matter of a lack of food resources being available as many a bleeding heart would have us believe it is.