Losing One's Life to Liberalism....

[J.E.D]

None of those laws exist. Ok, the light bulb one does, but I'm sure you know that particular law was implemented by Republicans, under the Bush administration.

I'm sure you know it was implemented by both, being it passed a Democratic Congress and was signed by a Republican president.

Right. A Republican president. Your point is?

 

[peach174]

Jillian sounds just like the Europeans who post here on the board. Free education, free medical care.
Our Government pensions and medical care is paid for by taxes,by employee's and employer's, FICA. They are not free.
Same with school meals. Paid for by taxes.

no... better to have a society where whomever has the gun gets to "stand [his] ground"

your priorities are warped.

and i love the "european" thing...

there should CONTINUE to be free education

there should be medical care for everyone. we're the only ostensibly "civilized" society that doesn't take care of its own.

i work. i pay taxes... i'd like Romney and others who are similarly situated, to pay the same rate of taxes that i do. but they don't... because they have income derived from interest and my income is comprised of W2 wages. to me, income has a definition and whatever fits in that definition is taxable AT THE SAME RATE.

i do love how rightwingnuts love interfering in people's most intimate choices but don't want to pay for education.

explains why education levels in the red states is the pits.

Billionaires pay millions in taxes.
Romney paid 13.9% in taxes, after deductions.
If you fit into the category of an average worker , you pay around 7% to 8%, jillian.
But I do think that we need to change our tax code.
Romney paid a higher percentage for the income that he made just like you do.The he is taxed again on the money he originally made and put into stocks.
Are you double taxed jillian?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poor kids get a healthy breakfast.

Since you care so much how about you pay for it then? Oh that's right, I forgot, you folks are only charitable when someone else is footing the bill.

Last I checked it was the school's responsibility to educate, not parent. I feed my kid. There is no reason why other parents shouldn't be feeding theirs. The increased nannying by the government schools encourages continued parental neglect.

It's a child for Christ sakes...

The kids parents are either unable or unwilling to provide a proper breakfast. I am glad that you do such an admirable job in feeding your own children. But to take a stand that I take care of mine, screw the rest is callous

It seems that either you can't read, or you can't tell the truth....

...please advise: which is it?


From the OP:

4. “In an effort to increase the number of schools with a School Breakfast Program the Department of Public Instruction (DPI), the University of Wisconsin-Cooperative Extension, and the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board have issued the Wisconsin School Breakfast Challenge. The challenge is to encourage all public and private schools to implement a SBP if they currently do not offer one and to increase school breakfast participation by 50 percent in existing school breakfast buildings.”

a. Mequon-Thiensville School District was the affluent Milwaukee suburb named winner for increasing in-school breakfast participation by 110% over the 2007-2008 school year. This community had a median family income of more than $107,000. The mean value of houses in which said children do not partake of breakfast was $471,353. Sykes, “Nation of Moochers,” p. 80.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So I'm guessing you're just not in to volunteering your time.............

How much time I do or don't volunteer is none of your damn business. I'm not going to sit here and trumpet it for the world to see, hoping to make myself look good and win over the praise of fake assholes like yourself. I do what I do not for the praise of people, but for the sake of my belief in it. I think you need some Jesus in your life, and maybe you'd understand that it's not what you say and do that matters, it's the hidden truth inside your soul that matters.

New rule: You can't say you love the poor if you're going to talk shit about them. I don't care if you volunteer 80 hours a week at a soup kitchen that you built with your bare hands and at your own expense, to which you continue to donate $10 million USD yearly. Just be honest about it already. You hate the fuckers and the only reason you're doing what you're doing is to keep them from sleeping at your mansion gates and stinking up the neighborhood with the smell of their piss covered clothes, because you can't get away with shooting them.

 

[Inthemiddle]

But I do think that we need to change our tax code.
Romney paid a higher percentage for the income that he made just like you do.The he is taxed again on the money he originally made and put into stocks.
Are you double taxed jillian?

You know, I find that I'm often triple taxed. I pay taxes on my income. Then I pay taxes on my investments, like automobiles, furniture, clothes, business supplies and materials, etc. Then, I'm taxed AGAIN when my investments are returned to me in the form of "income." Even if I break "even" after the second round of taxation, the third layer still brings me down into the hole again.

 

[peach174]

Free breakfast/lunch should be a state funded program. The state is aware of the needs of it's less fortunate. Just another Federally funded program so they can regulate and control everyone. The more money a state takes from the feds, the more obligated they become.

Besides, I'll take a leap of faith here and say the states could certainly find a more affordable route than the Feds. Childhood obesity is huge, and while I realize some kids don't get the nutrition they need, it's not a Federal responsibility!!

That's only a logical argument if you believe that a healthy well educated population is NOT a vital national interest.

Dem's have done nothing about it, for over forty years, except throw more and more money in education, without reforming the system.
We want our children well educated and that means all across the country. But our education system is failing in math and science, and getting worse in all areas.

 

[Ravi]

"Helicopter Moms" hover over their little ones….they cling, cloy….smother.
Some of the kids get to the point where they scream ‘geeezz…I can do it myself! Just let me live my life, will ya???”

It’s not healthy for a person- or a nation- to be infantilized.

Now, you’re an adult…and some stranger opens the door for you…OK, ‘thanks.’ But when that becomes every day, and they insist on sweeping the path to your car as well…shouldn’t you start to as ask yourself ‘What the heck does this person want from me?”

They want to make you happy…according to their definition…your whole life. That’s Liberalism.
And it starts at breakfast with your children…..



1. We start ‘em young in dependency.. at the breakfast table! Principals responsible for increasing the numbers in the school breakfast program!!! Teach dependency, right up there with reading, math, discipline, and graduation rates.

a. “In a locally unprecedented move, the School District of Philadelphia will hold principals accountable for the number of students eating breakfast in their schools. Breakfast participation will be part of the report card that rates principals each year, along with categories such as attendance and math and reading performance.” In city schools, breakfast's now on the principal The head of each school will be held responsible for ensuring that students are well-fed. - Philly.com


2. School breakfast is now a universal freebie….regardless of need or family income!

a. “In Pueblo, school officials take a counterintuitive approach: They offer free breakfast to all children regardless of income, so no one is embarrassed to be eating it. In most schools here, breakfast is served right in the classrooms. …Feeding free breakfast to students who can afford to pay avoids the stigma for students who can't but don't want everyone to know. Serving breakfast in class means kids don't have to get there early to be fed, Kidd and other school nutrition directors say. Bus schedules, parents' work schedules, and, for high school students, the desire to sleep as late as possible make getting to school early for breakfast difficult.” Breakfast in class: Fight against kids' hunger starts at school - USATODAY.com

b. Did you get the part about not worrying about being late?

c. The winner in the food lottery is New Mexico, where some 63% of students eat two meals a day in school.



3. But, what about the ‘epidemic of obesity?? Doesn’t the evidence suggest that the problem is hardly a lack of food? No problem for the well-intentioned Liberal-lobby! Just invent a new pathology, a new euphemism! While the kids may not be hungry, or undernourished, they are ….ready? ….”food insecure!”

• "In 2010, children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.8 percent of households with children (3.9 million households.) In one percent of households with children,one or more of the children experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. vi). "Hunger in America: 2012 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts


4. “In an effort to increase the number of schools with a School Breakfast Program the Department of Public Instruction (DPI), the University of Wisconsin-Cooperative Extension, and the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board have issued the Wisconsin School Breakfast Challenge. The challenge is to encourage all public and private schools to implement a SBP if they currently do not offer one and to increase school breakfast participation by 50 percent in existing school breakfast buildings.”

a. Mequon-Thiensville School District was the affluent Milwaukee suburb named winner for increasing in-school breakfast participation by 110% over the 2007-2008 school year. This community had a median family income of more than $107,000. The mean value of houses in which said children do not partake of breakfast was $471,353. Sykes, “Nation of Moochers,” p. 80.



5. Based on the above, I look forward to the argument put forth by professional Liberalism, geared toward supporting the idea that the implementation of unnecessary programs is anything but an attempt to grow government.

a. The avalanche of transfer payments are accepted by the public only if they are trained to accept what William Voegeli calls ‘non-Euclidean economics,” in which taxpayers are led to believe that all the goodies are paid for by someone else….the welfare state manages the perceptions of its cost s and benefits to encourage them to believe an impossibility: that every household can be a net importer of the wealth redistribution by the government.”
William Voegeli, “Never Enough, America’s Limitless Welfare State,” p. 7.


Self-reliance?

Independence?

Stand on your own two feet?


Sure...right after we run to get the 'free' breakfast.

PC, do you take the mortgage deduction? Maybe count the rug rats as a tax deduction? EITC, perhaps?

I think you should lead by example and dispense with your government handouts before you start throwing stones.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you support ending government funded school breakfast/lunch programs?

I do. That food is unhealthy, processed crap anyway.

Starvation is certainly the more healthy option.

Now, now, Inthe....

...try not to obfuscate.
This is in the OP:
"3. But, what about the ‘epidemic of obesity?? Doesn’t the evidence suggest that the problem is hardly a lack of food? No problem for the well-intentioned Liberal-lobby! Just invent a new pathology, a new euphemism! While the kids may not be hungry, or undernourished, they are ….ready? ….”food insecure!”

• "In 2010, children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.8 percent of households with children (3.9 million households.) In one percent of households with children,one or more of the children experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. vi). "Hunger in America: 2012 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts"


I'm going to guess that you actually know that there is no case for 'starvation.'
In fact, multiple studies show that, on average, low-income children are quite welll fed and ther is little evidence of 'under-nutrition.' One measure is growth rate, height, and weight. Low income 18 and 19 year-olds today are both taller and heavier than the average of the same age in the general American population of the late 1950's.

"Poor boys living today are one inch taller, and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs of similar age during WWII, and nearly two inches taller and 20 pounds heavier than American doughboys back in WWI."
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America


Care to respond?

 

[naturegirl]

Free breakfast/lunch should be a state funded program. The state is aware of the needs of it's less fortunate. Just another Federally funded program so they can regulate and control everyone. The more money a state takes from the feds, the more obligated they become.

Besides, I'll take a leap of faith here and say the states could certainly find a more affordable route than the Feds. Childhood obesity is huge, and while I realize some kids don't get the nutrition they need, it's not a Federal responsibility!!

That's only a logical argument if you believe that a healthy well educated population is NOT a vital national interest.

Spending all that money on education has created a healthy, well educated population??

 

[zeke]

Poor kids get a healthy breakfast.

Since you care so much how about you pay for it then? Oh that's right, I forgot, you folks are only charitable when someone else is footing the bill.

Wonder what the cost to our society is of haveing an entire group of kids that are growing up uneducated and unmotivated. And hungry. In case you missed out on this idea; hungry kids do not take to education as well as not hungry kids. Just can't teach the kid very well when their belly is growling. Oh well. So for the first and second graders, maybe they are hungry when reading is being taught. And they don't learn how to read very well. And they fall behind and they never get caught back up. And grow up to be young, single moms/dads, no HS diploma with no skills receiving welfare for three kids by two moms/dads; blah blah balh.

How much does breakfast cost?

 

[PoliticalChic]

From conception to birth. After that, fuck 'em.

I'm pro-choice, dumb ass. Try again.

And anti-compassionate. I get it.

Seems you don't 'get it,' Joey.


"In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."
Newsvine - Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com


The book is in your local library....

 

[naturegirl]

Poor kids get a healthy breakfast.

Since you care so much how about you pay for it then? Oh that's right, I forgot, you folks are only charitable when someone else is footing the bill.

Wonder what the cost to our society is of haveing an entire group of kids that are growing up uneducated and unmotivated. And hungry. In case you missed out on this idea; hungry kids do not take to education as well as not hungry kids. Just can't teach the kid very well when their belly is growling. Oh well. So for the first and second graders, maybe they are hungry when reading is being taught. And they don't learn how to read very well. And they fall behind and they never get caught back up. And grow up to be young, single moms/dads, no HS diploma with no skills receiving welfare for three kids by two moms/dads; blah blah balh.

How much does breakfast cost?

I know how much it costs me, but I'd wager it costs the government 3x that much.

Yea, and by providing breakfast we are turning out all kinds of the best educated kids in the World spending billions of dollars along the way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

still making up nonsense, PC?

don't worry, i'm sure the rightwingnuts will love it.

cool

you know, i'd think there are things you legitimately disagree with.

you should be embarrassed for your constant prevarication.... but i know you aren't.

I'm pleased that you chose to engage in this thread....but in your several posts, I don't see any where you have found any errors in the OP....

Seems the difference between our views is that you agree with a government that would and should do everything for citizens....

The problem is that, to do so, it must take everything from citizens.



"The developments seem to fulfill the aspirations of the legendary liberal warhorse Hubert Humphrey, who pushed for federal funding to provide every student in the country a free daily lunch. David Stockman, who was President Reagan's budget chief, noted that since the government already provided free meals to poor children, the only apparent benefit was to give more affluent families 'the privilege of buying school lunches on an annual purchase plan every April 15th."
William Voegeli, "Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State," p.249.


So...the challenge: either agree with this post, state you wish to be a vassal of the state....
...of show where the OP is "nonsense."


Double dog dare ya.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poor kids get a healthy breakfast.

Since you care so much how about you pay for it then? Oh that's right, I forgot, you folks are only charitable when someone else is footing the bill.

Wonder what the cost to our society is of haveing an entire group of kids that are growing up uneducated and unmotivated. And hungry. In case you missed out on this idea; hungry kids do not take to education as well as not hungry kids. Just can't teach the kid very well when their belly is growling. Oh well. So for the first and second graders, maybe they are hungry when reading is being taught. And they don't learn how to read very well. And they fall behind and they never get caught back up. And grow up to be young, single moms/dads, no HS diploma with no skills receiving welfare for three kids by two moms/dads; blah blah balh.

How much does breakfast cost?

You certainly are correct that kids are not educated...

...but, you will not find studies that show hunger.
It is a fabrication.

The breakfast and lunch program are simply designed to increase the size and role of government.



"There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;
Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1."
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115

 

[naturegirl]

Poor kids get a healthy breakfast.

Since you care so much how about you pay for it then? Oh that's right, I forgot, you folks are only charitable when someone else is footing the bill.

Wonder what the cost to our society is of haveing an entire group of kids that are growing up uneducated and unmotivated. And hungry. In case you missed out on this idea; hungry kids do not take to education as well as not hungry kids. Just can't teach the kid very well when their belly is growling. Oh well. So for the first and second graders, maybe they are hungry when reading is being taught. And they don't learn how to read very well. And they fall behind and they never get caught back up. And grow up to be young, single moms/dads, no HS diploma with no skills receiving welfare for three kids by two moms/dads; blah blah balh.

How much does breakfast cost?

You certainly are correct that kids are not educated...

...but, you will not find studies that show hunger.
It is a fabrication.

The breakfast and lunch program are simply designed to increase the size and role of government.



"There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;
Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1."
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115

Aren't those kids that are getting free breakfasts and lunches already getting government assistance for their families to buy food?? If they're not feeding them breakfast, what are they doing with that $????

 

[PoliticalChic]

It’s not healthy for a person- or a nation- to be infantilized.

Yet it is healthy for a young child to eat breakfast.

Why bring up "Yet it is healthy for a young child to eat breakfast."

Did you have trouble understanding the OP....or any of the posts?


No one said that children shouldn't have breakfast...

....did they, Red?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Helicopter Moms" hover over their little ones….they cling, cloy….smother.
Some of the kids get to the point where they scream ‘geeezz…I can do it myself! Just let me live my life, will ya???”

It’s not healthy for a person- or a nation- to be infantilized.

Now, you’re an adult…and some stranger opens the door for you…OK, ‘thanks.’ But when that becomes every day, and they insist on sweeping the path to your car as well…shouldn’t you start to as ask yourself ‘What the heck does this person want from me?”

They want to make you happy…according to their definition…your whole life. That’s Liberalism.
And it starts at breakfast with your children…..



.

Do you support ending government funded school breakfast/lunch programs?

I support means-tested programs.....
...how about you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow, conservatives are so compassionate towards poor people.

Is you definition of 'poor' an income of over $107,000?

Better re-read the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Helicopter Moms" hover over their little ones….they cling, cloy….smother.
Some of the kids get to the point where they scream ‘geeezz…I can do it myself! Just let me live my life, will ya???”

It’s not healthy for a person- or a nation- to be infantilized.

Now, you’re an adult…and some stranger opens the door for you…OK, ‘thanks.’ But when that becomes every day, and they insist on sweeping the path to your car as well…shouldn’t you start to as ask yourself ‘What the heck does this person want from me?”

They want to make you happy…according to their definition…your whole life. That’s Liberalism.
And it starts at breakfast with your children…..



.

Do you support ending government funded school breakfast/lunch programs?

I support means-tested programs.....
...how about you?

aka redistribution of wealth socialism.

I agree with you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What exactly is she making up?

everything... but given your proclivity to make up the same type of nonsense, i'm sure you'd be unable to figure it out.

And yet, all we're left with is your say-so.

So...looks like you have nothing.

how's your government pension and free medical care treating you, btw?

It's not free healthcare. I have a monthly payment for coverage and copays for doctor visits and meds.

Perhaps you should do a little research.

personally, i think our military should be treated properly, but given the great offense you take to any safety net, i'd think you should decline those benefits on principle....

You've been paying more attention to the stereotypes spread among the left than to anything I've written. I have no problem with a safety net for those who need it, nor do most conservatives.

As far as me turning down my pension and health coverage -- don't they teach lawyers anything about contract law these days? I had a contract with the government: I serve 20 years and they give me a pension and low-cost health coverage.

I fulfilled my end of the contract. They're fulfilling theirs. Do you think I have a principle against contractual obligations? Why would I turn down benefits I earned?

Hold on there, Daveman...

Liberals don't believe that one need obey the Constitution as to contracts....

"Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


a. But, what happens when an exercise of the police powers contradicts an express prohibition in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, trumping both state legislatures and state courts?

b. That was the issue that confronted the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles: “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were thus imposed are questions which have always been, and always will be, the subject of close examination under our constitutional system.”

“While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power. . .. The constitutional question presented in the light of an emergency is whether the power possessed embraces the particular exercise of it in response to particular conditions. . ..“The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts.


c. So there you have it. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail. And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.

From Economic Liberty and the Constitution, Part 9