The biggest problem in America today is...

[Lonestar_logic]

While that basic argument is ALWAYS a credible one, it's unrealistic in today's enormously diverse society which includes millions of uneducated and/or poverty-level families. While that's nice to preach to a gathering of a hundred or so, it's hardly effective as a workable tool for millions in untenable situations to abide by. I swear some of you people never climb outside your comfy little boxes and take a good long look at the REAL world.

What does anything you just said have to do with people feeding their children? Or personal responsibility?

Allow me to translate: Preaching about what people SHOULD do represents nothing but all talk and no action. You can drag a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Expanding on that analogy, if you have 20 horses at one water trough, some of them will still be thirsty. Need I go on?

OK so in order to force people to take responibility for themselves we must first abolish every single welfare program. Beginning with school lunches, now either the parents will step up and take care of their own children or they'll starve. Makes no difference to me.

Your analogy is lame, no horse would go thirsty, either they will drink to satisfy their thirst or they will not drink meaning they were not thirsty in the first place. A horse has a lot more sense than most parents.

 

[MaggieMae]

Our school now offers free breakfast as well as lunch. Many of the after school clubs provide pizza and other snacks because the teachers know that many of these kids won't get dinner. What the hell do these people do with their food stamps?

Why the parents enjoy steak and lobster for two weeks, then the FS allowance is gone 'till next month. You mean you didn't know that?

 

[ba1614]

Are there really that many people out there unable to exercise restraint in their everyday lives that we need to now regulate what people choose to eat?

I have an idea.. stop shoving Quarter Pounders in your cakehole on a regular basis.. problem solved.

And get out and exercise a little! Revolutionary thinking isn't it?

 

[MaggieMae]

Is there some law saying these kids have to buy lunch at school? Don't like what's being offered? Pack your kid's lunch. You control what goes in it. My kids never buy their lunch at school. They've all tried it once or twice and found the food gross so they don't buy. Even if they found the food good enough they still wouldn't buy because why would I spend more money on school food vs. what I can make for them? And who says you just have to have pb&j or bologna? blech. Roast beef, turkey, ham and cheese, chicken, egg, and tuna salad . . . The government needs to butt the hell out. What, are they one day going to be telling me I can't have whole milk because it's full fat and because they think I shouldn't have it? Give me a break. People aren't fat because someone is holding a gun to their heads forcing them to eat crap; people are fat because they choose to eat crap.

What the nazis want is to take choice away because some are not capable of choosing wisely, so therefore no one should have choice. Unless of course it's something that they support such as abortion, then it's all about 'choice'. You don't take freedoms away from people b/c some cannot behave wisely under it. You let those who cannot make wise choices learn from their unwise choices, otherwise the bad behavior will just continue. The answer is not trying to rigidly control what everyone else is doing, that's never going to work.

Do your teenaged children know you post here as a nearly naked pimp? Yet you have the balls to start accusing others of bad behavior. Incredible. No, pathetic.

 

[MaggieMae]

What does anything you just said have to do with people feeding their children? Or personal responsibility?

Allow me to translate: Preaching about what people SHOULD do represents nothing but all talk and no action. You can drag a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Expanding on that analogy, if you have 20 horses at one water trough, some of them will still be thirsty. Need I go on?

OK so in order to force people to take responibility for themselves we must first abolish every single welfare program. Beginning with school lunches, now either the parents will step up and take care of their own children or they'll starve. Makes no difference to me.

Your analogy is lame, no horse would go thirsty, either they will drink to satisfy their thirst or they will not drink meaning they were not thirsty in the first place. A horse has a lot more sense than most parents.

Of course it makes no difference to you. I certainly expected nothing more. As for my analogy, I wracked my brain trying to come up with a speedy, simplistic analogy that someone as shallow as you might understand. And apparently you still don't.

 

[chanel]

Oh.I didn't realize they were using their food stamps for steak and lobster. I thought they were trading them for weed or using them at the hair salon. My bad..

 

[Bern80]

Until you can afford to pay yours and your familiy's own medical bills WITHOUT health insurance, the full fees, the government should have SOME right to regulate your diet. The pizza, and burgers and hot dogs and cakes and snacks that we all eat cause us to get overweight and to have problems such as diabetes and heart disease and then health insurance companies have to pay the doctors fees and hospital fees and this fee and that fee and that causes premiums to go up which cause less people to be able to afford health insurance or makes using health insurance more difficult to obtain or keep or maintain which leads to trillions of dollars spent to reform health care all because people are making the wrong nutrition choices.

And if you don't think 90% of medical related illnesses are due to poor nutrition, then you need to smarten up.

Don't you mean the health insurance companies. Currently they are the ones paying for healthcare. Nitpicing I know, bit in principle I agree. There needs to be consequnces of some type for your life style choices. I don't have a problem with regulating what public schools can serve because the government funds ther. I would have an isse with the government regulating diet on an individual basis though. I think a better way to do it would be for your eating choices and overall health to be reflected in your premiums.

 

[Newby]

Is there some law saying these kids have to buy lunch at school? Don't like what's being offered? Pack your kid's lunch. You control what goes in it. My kids never buy their lunch at school. They've all tried it once or twice and found the food gross so they don't buy. Even if they found the food good enough they still wouldn't buy because why would I spend more money on school food vs. what I can make for them? And who says you just have to have pb&j or bologna? blech. Roast beef, turkey, ham and cheese, chicken, egg, and tuna salad . . . The government needs to butt the hell out. What, are they one day going to be telling me I can't have whole milk because it's full fat and because they think I shouldn't have it? Give me a break. People aren't fat because someone is holding a gun to their heads forcing them to eat crap; people are fat because they choose to eat crap.

What the nazis want is to take choice away because some are not capable of choosing wisely, so therefore no one should have choice. Unless of course it's something that they support such as abortion, then it's all about 'choice'. You don't take freedoms away from people b/c some cannot behave wisely under it. You let those who cannot make wise choices learn from their unwise choices, otherwise the bad behavior will just continue. The answer is not trying to rigidly control what everyone else is doing, that's never going to work.

Do your teenaged children know you post here as a nearly naked pimp? Yet you have the balls to start accusing others of bad behavior. Incredible. No, pathetic.

And you had the temerity to call me stupid? Your ignorance is incredible, it's no wonder you have the ideologies and beliefs that you do. You have my sympathies.

It also shows that you have nothing with which to respond with in an intelligent and mature manner, so you resort to insults. And you're talking to me about 'bad behavior'? Incredible. No, pathetic.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Allow me to translate: Preaching about what people SHOULD do represents nothing but all talk and no action. You can drag a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Expanding on that analogy, if you have 20 horses at one water trough, some of them will still be thirsty. Need I go on?

OK so in order to force people to take responibility for themselves we must first abolish every single welfare program. Beginning with school lunches, now either the parents will step up and take care of their own children or they'll starve. Makes no difference to me.

Your analogy is lame, no horse would go thirsty, either they will drink to satisfy their thirst or they will not drink meaning they were not thirsty in the first place. A horse has a lot more sense than most parents.

Of course it makes no difference to you. I certainly expected nothing more. As for my analogy, I wracked my brain trying to come up with a speedy, simplistic analogy that someone as shallow as you might understand. And apparently you still don't.

Tell me why I should care if you or anyone else can feed their children? To be perfectly honest, I hate that my tax dollars are used to feed anyone for any reason. Instead of giving poor people fish, we should teach them how to fish. But the welfare programs are not geared that way and it's my opinion that by providing for poor people, we are enabling them to stay poor. There is no incentive for them to better themselves. And why should they when they have us to pay for their food and housing.

Your analogy may have been too simple for you to understand. The saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink", means an animal, and by implication a person, will only do what it or he wants to do. So in the case of welfare, people will do what they want to do given the choices they have. You take away one of the choices,(welfare) then you force them to become responsible for themselves and their family or perish. If they perish then it's no ones fault but their own.

 

[chanel]

But what about the children????

(Those are the MOST EXPENSIVE words in the English language)

 

[Lonestar_logic]

But what about the children????

(Those are the MOST EXPENSIVE words in the English language)

If you can't feed 'em, don't have 'em.

 

[chanel]

 

[Newby]

OK so in order to force people to take responibility for themselves we must first abolish every single welfare program. Beginning with school lunches, now either the parents will step up and take care of their own children or they'll starve. Makes no difference to me.

Your analogy is lame, no horse would go thirsty, either they will drink to satisfy their thirst or they will not drink meaning they were not thirsty in the first place. A horse has a lot more sense than most parents.

Of course it makes no difference to you. I certainly expected nothing more. As for my analogy, I wracked my brain trying to come up with a speedy, simplistic analogy that someone as shallow as you might understand. And apparently you still don't.

Tell me why I should care if you or anyone else can feed their children? To be perfectly honest, I hate that my tax dollars are used to feed anyone for any reason. Instead of giving poor people fish, we should teach them how to fish. But the welfare programs are not geared that way and it's my opinion that by providing for poor people, we are enabling them to stay poor. There is no incentive for them to better themselves. And why should they when they have us to pay for their food and housing.

Your analogy may have been too simple for you to understand. The saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink", means an animal, and by implication a person, will only do what it or he wants to do. So in the case of welfare, people will do what they want to do given the choices they have. You take away one of the choices,(welfare) then you force them to become responsible for themselves and their family or perish. If they perish then it's no ones fault but their own.

That's how I view it as well. Well said.

I see nothing wrong with helping someone in a crisis or catastophe situation for a limited period of time until they get themselves back up on their feet, or on a permanent basis if they are incapable of getting back on their feet, but the extent of what we do in this country goes too far.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Of course it makes no difference to you. I certainly expected nothing more. As for my analogy, I wracked my brain trying to come up with a speedy, simplistic analogy that someone as shallow as you might understand. And apparently you still don't.

Tell me why I should care if you or anyone else can feed their children? To be perfectly honest, I hate that my tax dollars are used to feed anyone for any reason. Instead of giving poor people fish, we should teach them how to fish. But the welfare programs are not geared that way and it's my opinion that by providing for poor people, we are enabling them to stay poor. There is no incentive for them to better themselves. And why should they when they have us to pay for their food and housing.

Your analogy may have been too simple for you to understand. The saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink", means an animal, and by implication a person, will only do what it or he wants to do. So in the case of welfare, people will do what they want to do given the choices they have. You take away one of the choices,(welfare) then you force them to become responsible for themselves and their family or perish. If they perish then it's no ones fault but their own.

That's how I view it as well. Well said.

I see nothing wrong with helping someone in a crisis or catastophe situation for a limited period of time until they get themselves back up on their feet, or on a permanent basis if they are incapable of getting back on their feet, but the extent of what we do in this country goes too far.

I, much like yourself, don't mind helping folks out when they're down on their luck. But I would not lift a finger to help those that refuse to help themselves. I mean seriously, if a woman has two kids that she can't afford to feed, then she shouldn't be having a third and fourth child. I won't get into the illegitimacy rates that plague this country, but suffice it to say that it is one of the factors that leads to poverty.IMHO

 

[GHook93]

But what about the children????

(Those are the MOST EXPENSIVE words in the English language)

If you can't feed 'em, don't have 'em.

Might make you feel better by saying that, but there is a problem you don't address. Children don't have a CHOICE! I guarantee you are pro-life. So if a girl gets knocked up, you won't give her a choice but to have the baby. When the child is here they are expensive. HELL food is expensive. Kids need to eat.

It is unconcionable to think that we will punish a child for the misfortunes of being born to dead beat parent, down on their luck parents or just unskill or unemployed parents. Sorry I just can't support that reason. A child is 100% dependent on the parent for food, clothes, shelter, money and their general well being! They can't work or do much to change their situation!

 

[chanel]

I agree with you. As a teacher in a fairly poor school district, I could tell you hundreds of horror stories. It's not the kids' fault. But with that said, we are creating a culture of irresponsibility. Teen pregnancy has become so accepted in our community that TEACHERS are throwing baby showers for students complete with balloons and cakes that say 'CONGRATULATIONS". Congratulations? How about "my sympathies to your unborn child?"

 

[Oldandtired]

But what about the children????

(Those are the MOST EXPENSIVE words in the English language)

If you can't feed 'em, don't have 'em.

Might make you feel better by saying that, but there is a problem you don't address. Children don't have a CHOICE! I guarantee you are pro-life. So if a girl gets knocked up, you won't give her a choice but to have the baby. When the child is here they are expensive. HELL food is expensive. Kids need to eat.

It is unconcionable to think that we will punish a child for the misfortunes of being born to dead beat parent, down on their luck parents or just unskill or unemployed parents. Sorry I just can't support that reason. A child is 100% dependent on the parent for food, clothes, shelter, money and their general well being! They can't work or do much to change their situation!

Yeah....those children need and deserve our help...and I as a successful American do not mind my tax dollars going to things like that.

But for those dollars to go to the 30 year old that prefers partying on wednesday night and thus losing his job on thursday....and the dollars to be used to pay for his beer and smokes?

No fucking way.

But yes...INCREASE my taxers to help the children.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Healthy food is too expensive. Maybe if PARENTS had to feed their own kids, schools wouldn't have to serve so much crap. Perhaps if we eliminated free lunch, the obesity rate would go down.

Healthy food isn't expensive. Hell, one of the cheapest sections in the supermarket is the produce section. It's actually pretty interesting to note the difference in shopping between poor Americans and recent immigrants from third world nations. My local supermarket has several customers who moved here from someplace in Africa. Togo, I think, or somewhere near it. They're on food stamps (which begs the question of why we're letting people in who immediately go on welfare, but that's a different topic), and they never buy convenience foods. They spend it all on fruits, vegetables, and cheap cuts of meat from the butcher, pieces of dead animal I didn't even recognize. I can't speak for how healthy their preparation methods are - for all I know, they fry it all in lard - but They're certainly buying the components of a healthy diet for a lot less than the native poor folks are spending on their baskets full of junk food.

 

[chanel]

I realize we've gotten a little off topic, but what I would really like to see are community co-ops where welfare recipients can buy NECESSITIES. A certain alotment for healthy food, kids clothes and school supplies etc.. If we are to assume that they are too irresponsible to take care of themselves then we can assume they aren't taking very good care of their kids either. If we are to be a nanny state then maybe we should start treating them like children.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

But what about the children????

(Those are the MOST EXPENSIVE words in the English language)

If you can't feed 'em, don't have 'em.

Might make you feel better by saying that, but there is a problem you don't address. Children don't have a CHOICE! I guarantee you are pro-life. So if a girl gets knocked up, you won't give her a choice but to have the baby. When the child is here they are expensive. HELL food is expensive. Kids need to eat.

It is unconcionable to think that we will punish a child for the misfortunes of being born to dead beat parent, down on their luck parents or just unskill or unemployed parents. Sorry I just can't support that reason. A child is 100% dependent on the parent for food, clothes, shelter, money and their general well being! They can't work or do much to change their situation!

That's right a child is 100% dependent on their parents that's why people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them. I'm assuming everyone knows how children are made, so there is no excuse when a girl becomes pregnant. My oldest daughter (27) had her first child when she was 21 after she was married and had completed her college education. My youngest daughter now 21 and married is on her last year of college and has no immediate plans of having children.

In order for a child not to make mistakes like teen pregnancies, they must have a parent that parents them. As I mentioned earlier the big reason for poverty is illegitimate births, according to 2006 statistics, whites illegitimacy rate was 26.6%, blacks 70.7%, hispanic 49.9%, native American 64.6% and asians at 16.5%.