#LetThemDie: ‘Heartless’ Trump Blasted For Meals On Wheels Cuts

[JBond]

Is see the snowflakes are still foaming at the mouth over a 3% cut.

 

[Slade3200]

You don't hold trump to any kind of standard at all, do you? Here is what trump was saying about vacations just weeks ago:

I wonder where Trump learned that from???

So you are saying that Trump lies just like Obama? Is that supposed to defend his actions and hypocrisy?

Merely pointing out your guy did the exact same thing. Maybe you heard the saying........people in glass houses.............

Whether you like it or not Obama was OUR guy and Trump is now OUR guy. If Obama did something wrong it doesn't justify Trump doing it. Wrong is wrong, we should be striving for better not making excuses.

Slade, you are a pretty transparent poster. You like to constantly claim that you have no political side, but always defend the left at least 90% of the time while never defending the right. Then, when somebody puts you in the corner about how a left made mistakes or did the same thing as a right,it's back to "we are all for one and one for all!"

Ray, you can't say I defend the left 90% of the time and never defend the right. Mathematics says that I defend the Right 10% of the time. Which is actually pretty close to true.
I think if you knew the guy behind Slade you'd see somebody much more conservative than you think. sometimes I play devils advocate to stir discussion. Often I go after people who are being dishonest with their arguments or spewing needless partisan hate. But I've gotten into it a few times with left wing nutters when I see them getting out of line. The Right wing nutters just seem to be so much more hard headed and combative on this site. I get painted into a corner.

It's hard for me to defend Trump because he is a careless bully and I don't respect people with his kind of temperament. I tried to give him a chance and even posted a few times about the rediculous reaction from the left. I really do think he has potential to do good things but his ego keeps getting in his way. It gets harder and harder to hold a supportive view as the shinanigans grow worse.

 

[boedicca]

Yet, the article clearly says that the feds will give block grants to the states instead of supporting these programs. Kansas, and Louisiana, for example, having been put on the verge of bankruptcy by the tea party, are going to end ANY fed money for these programs. Meanwhile:

“It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which they will not be significantly and negatively impacted if the president’s budget were enacted,” Meals on Wheels spokeswoman Jenny Bertolette told CNN on Thursday."

This is not PBS, Planned Parenthood, or Public Radio. This is a program that feeds hungry citizens, while Trump takes his weekly multimillion dollar vacations to his luxury resort, and feeds the military which already spends more that the next seven nations combined. This is not food stamps for drug addicts. This is for children who go to school hungry. This is beyond unconscionable. This is disgusting. And the budget chief who is justifying it because, "there is no proof that hungry children underachieve in school", and, "Meals on Wheels is not effective" is even more disgusting. How the hell hell do you demonstrate the Meals on Wheels is not effective in fighting hunger? The guy is claiming compassion for the impoverished Detroit taxpayer, and at the same time, raising their taxes:

"Under the current tax plan, a single parent pays a 10 percent federal tax rate, or $1,255 on a $34,000 annual income, after applying the exceptions available. Under Trump’s proposed plan, the rate would increase to 12 percent, and with the reduction of various exceptions, the same single parent would be paying $2,280."

Either he is an idiot, or he things that WE are idiots. I can only assume that he thinks that everybody swallows the crap coming out of the White House.

There is a lot of evidence that school lunch programs do a lot of good. However, you don't have to look at any studies just ask any teacher or parent who has tried to teach hunger children. Cutting this program will create a backlash far greater than Trump expects.

Here's a thought: how about parents packing lunches for their own children who are their responsibility?

I'm all for it but do you really think that irresponsible parents will change their way if only school lunch funding is cut?

If the parents are irresponsible, then they have no business raising children.

There's not a big adoption market for school-aged kids. How do you propose to address that?

So, what you are saying is that if the government is aware that parents are not taking care of their school-aged kids, then the kids are just fucked.

That's about how government works.

 

[JoeNormal]

There is a lot of evidence that school lunch programs do a lot of good. However, you don't have to look at any studies just ask any teacher or parent who has tried to teach hunger children. Cutting this program will create a backlash far greater than Trump expects.

Here's a thought: how about parents packing lunches for their own children who are their responsibility?

I'm all for it but do you really think that irresponsible parents will change their way if only school lunch funding is cut?

If the parents are irresponsible, then they have no business raising children.

There's not a big adoption market for school-aged kids. How do you propose to address that?

So, what you are saying is that if the government is aware that parents are not taking care of their school-aged kids, then the kids are just fucked.

That's about how government works.

Speaking pragmatically, there are a lot of parents in the world that shouldn't be parents. There are also insufficient numbers of other people who would want to take their kids in. What's your solution, fund a bunch of orphanages?

 

[boedicca]

Here's a thought: how about parents packing lunches for their own children who are their responsibility?

I'm all for it but do you really think that irresponsible parents will change their way if only school lunch funding is cut?

If the parents are irresponsible, then they have no business raising children.

There's not a big adoption market for school-aged kids. How do you propose to address that?

So, what you are saying is that if the government is aware that parents are not taking care of their school-aged kids, then the kids are just fucked.

That's about how government works.

Speaking pragmatically, there are a lot of parents in the world that shouldn't be parents. There are also insufficient numbers of other people who would want to take their kids in. What's your solution, fund a bunch of orphanages?

Yes. That would be far better than leaving children with incompetent parents who endanger them.

 

[protectionist]

And so does starving the elderly. What's your priority? Starving the elderly or keeping a Mexican from picking your green beans?

Keeping Mexicans from picking green beans helps to AVOID starving the elderly. With the illegal aliens here, we get LESS money in the tax treasuries, not more.

 

[Nosmo King]

And so does starving the elderly. What's your priority? Starving the elderly or keeping a Mexican from picking your green beans?

Keeping Mexicans from picking green beans helps to AVOID starving the elderly. With the illegal aliens here, we get LESS money in the tax treasuries, not more.

Prove it. Undocumented workers pay sales taxes.

 

[JBond]

Here's a thought: how about parents packing lunches for their own children who are their responsibility?

I'm all for it but do you really think that irresponsible parents will change their way if only school lunch funding is cut?

If the parents are irresponsible, then they have no business raising children.

There's not a big adoption market for school-aged kids. How do you propose to address that?

So, what you are saying is that if the government is aware that parents are not taking care of their school-aged kids, then the kids are just fucked.

That's about how government works.

Speaking pragmatically, there are a lot of parents in the world that shouldn't be parents. There are also insufficient numbers of other people who would want to take their kids in. What's your solution, fund a bunch of orphanages?

A very liberal friend of mine suggested a Cadillac for every voluntary sterilization. Cheaper in the long run.

 

[Pogo]

Is see the snowflakes are still foaming at the mouth over a 3% cut.

I see the military mongers are still coming in their pants about having over 50% of the budget dedicated to war toys. That somebody else will have to deal with of course.

 

[JBond]

Is see the snowflakes are still foaming at the mouth over a 3% cut.

I see the military mongers are still coming in their pants about having over 50% of the budget dedicated to war toys. That somebody else will have to deal with of course.

What are you babbling about? The faux outrage over a 3% cut is asinine.

 

[Lakhota]

Trump is evil.

 

[Pogo]

Is see the snowflakes are still foaming at the mouth over a 3% cut.

I see the military mongers are still coming in their pants about having over 50% of the budget dedicated to war toys. That somebody else will have to deal with of course.

What are you babbling about? The faux outrage over a 3% cut is asinine.

Gotta follow the thread, Spunky.

F'rinstnace from post 559:

Got that? Taking care of our population is worth 3% here, 6% there. Pushing people around across the globe, that gets 54%. Because priorities.

And for more perspective see 579.

Everybody ran away from this particular perspective. Now you can too.

 

[JBond]

Is see the snowflakes are still foaming at the mouth over a 3% cut.

I see the military mongers are still coming in their pants about having over 50% of the budget dedicated to war toys. That somebody else will have to deal with of course.

What are you babbling about? The faux outrage over a 3% cut is asinine.

Gotta follow the thread, Spunky.

F'rinstnace from post 559:

And for more perspective see 579.

Everybody ran away from this particular perspective. Now you can too.

Are you really going to continue to cry about a 3% cut? Really? Pussy hats and snowflakes everywhere.

 

[Pogo]

Trump is evil.

--- "with frickin' Cheeto beams attached to his head"....

 

[Pogo]

Is see the snowflakes are still foaming at the mouth over a 3% cut.

I see the military mongers are still coming in their pants about having over 50% of the budget dedicated to war toys. That somebody else will have to deal with of course.

What are you babbling about? The faux outrage over a 3% cut is asinine.

Gotta follow the thread, Spunky.

F'rinstnace from post 559:

And for more perspective see 579.

Everybody ran away from this particular perspective. Now you can too.

Are you really going to continue to cry about a 3% cut? Really? Pussy hats and snowflakes everywhere.

The pie chart that is not going away.

"Military: 54%"

More than twice as much as assisting farmers, getting people from point A to point B, paying Social Security and Medicare benefits, assisting the unemployed, assisting with housing, taking care of veterans AND Meals on Wheels ----------------- COMBINED.

Also more than the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh largest national military budgets of all the world's countries ---------------- COMBINED.

You want cuts? There's a YUUUUGE elephant in the room. Take up thy cleaver and walk.

 

[JBond]

Is see the snowflakes are still foaming at the mouth over a 3% cut.

I see the military mongers are still coming in their pants about having over 50% of the budget dedicated to war toys. That somebody else will have to deal with of course.

What are you babbling about? The faux outrage over a 3% cut is asinine.

Gotta follow the thread, Spunky.

F'rinstnace from post 559:

And for more perspective see 579.

Everybody ran away from this particular perspective. Now you can too.

Are you really going to continue to cry about a 3% cut? Really? Pussy hats and snowflakes everywhere.

The pie chart that is not going away.

"Military: 54%"

More than twice as much as assisting farmers, getting people from point A to point B, paying Social Security and Medicare benefits, assisting the unemployed, assisting with housing, taking care of veterans AND Meals on Wheels ----------------- COMBINED.

Also more than the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh largest national military budgets of all the world's countries ---------------- COMBINED.

You want cuts? There's a YUUUUGE elephant in the room. Take up thy cleaver and walk.

Your chart does not include state spending. Post all the numbers.

Or keep crying about a 3% cut.

 

[Pogo]

I see the military mongers are still coming in their pants about having over 50% of the budget dedicated to war toys. That somebody else will have to deal with of course.

What are you babbling about? The faux outrage over a 3% cut is asinine.

Gotta follow the thread, Spunky.

F'rinstnace from post 559:

And for more perspective see 579.

Everybody ran away from this particular perspective. Now you can too.

Are you really going to continue to cry about a 3% cut? Really? Pussy hats and snowflakes everywhere.

The pie chart that is not going away.

"Military: 54%"

More than twice as much as assisting farmers, getting people from point A to point B, paying Social Security and Medicare benefits, assisting the unemployed, assisting with housing, taking care of veterans AND Meals on Wheels ----------------- COMBINED.

Also more than the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh largest national military budgets of all the world's countries ---------------- COMBINED.

You want cuts? There's a YUUUUGE elephant in the room. Take up thy cleaver and walk.

Your chart does not include state spending. Post all the numbers.

Or keep crying about a 3% cut.

The POTUS doesn't propose budgets for states, Sprinkles.

Want an easy way to instantly find 18 Billion-with-a-B dollars?
You seem to like the number 3%. Take exactly that amount off that bloated MIC welfare check. 18 Billion right there. And you're STILL spending more than the next six biggest national militaries combined.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm all for it but do you really think that irresponsible parents will change their way if only school lunch funding is cut?

If the parents are irresponsible, then they have no business raising children.

There's not a big adoption market for school-aged kids. How do you propose to address that?

So, what you are saying is that if the government is aware that parents are not taking care of their school-aged kids, then the kids are just fucked.

That's about how government works.

Speaking pragmatically, there are a lot of parents in the world that shouldn't be parents. There are also insufficient numbers of other people who would want to take their kids in. What's your solution, fund a bunch of orphanages?

Yes. That would be far better than leaving children with incompetent parents who endanger them.

Better write your Congressman and don't complain about the cost.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm all for it but do you really think that irresponsible parents will change their way if only school lunch funding is cut?

If the parents are irresponsible, then they have no business raising children.

There's not a big adoption market for school-aged kids. How do you propose to address that?

So, what you are saying is that if the government is aware that parents are not taking care of their school-aged kids, then the kids are just fucked.

That's about how government works.

Speaking pragmatically, there are a lot of parents in the world that shouldn't be parents. There are also insufficient numbers of other people who would want to take their kids in. What's your solution, fund a bunch of orphanages?

A very liberal friend of mine suggested a Cadillac for every voluntary sterilization. Cheaper in the long run.

Might be. I think a lot of the people who have kids they don't want might even take advantage of sterilization if it were just free.