Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<You're right, we should just let the children of poor people starve to death.>> No, I think the parents should be put behind bars for child abuse. It is a parents fundemental responcibilty to feed their own children not someone elses (period).
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Sometimes they can indeed afford to feed them when they have them. Then they lose their jobs and fall into poverty.>> Unfortunate things happen, unemployment happens. These things all impact families. For these occurances we have food stamps and unemployment insurance. What does that have anything to do with Federally subsidized school lunches?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Again, so you would say let those children starve?>> I'm not letting them starve, their irresponcible parets are. Which I should remind everyone is a crime.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "My parents had children they could afford." Pretty freaking ignorant. See Dabob's post 36. I see parents everyday who could "afford" their children when they had them, but many of them end up staring at me across a desk. The mother is on welfare and food stamps with her 10 and 12 year old kids, living in a motel, after her marriage couldn't take the strain of her husband losing his job and then the house. If she was able to find a job, no one would be available to watch her kids before and after work. The father begs me for a break on his child support that he's been ordered to pay for the welfare reimbursement the county's paid for his kids. He's done at least 10 documented job searches a week for the last three months and finally found work at a temp agency working in a warehouse from midnight to 8:00 a.m. in the Long Beach Port Corridor. His car got stolen his second night there because it's in a horrible neighborhood. Now he has no place to live or a way to get around because you guessed it, he was living in his car until he could save up for a place. He's been ordered to pay $400 a month in child support and makes $8.50 an hour working 40 hours a week. You do the math. After taxes, what can this guy afford? A roof or child support? Certainly not both. This guy used to a Regional credit analyst for a large bank, which is still in existence. They sent his job to India where some guy named Meepdip does it for a fraction of the cost, and poorly to boot. He's 51 years old. Tell me, what's his future like? We see this kinds of situations dozens of times a day, every day of the week. There are so many more of these fractured families and lives than anyone cares to admit, and it is a large reason why I am OUT of patience with people who make ignorant, generalized comments like "My parents had children they could afford" or "Octomom!" You're the enemy. God, I hate today's GOP, absolutely hate them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Unfortunate things happen, unemployment happens. These things all impact families. For these occurances we have food stamps and unemployment insurance. What does that have anything to do with Federally subsidized school lunches?> If you can't see the connection, I don't know what to say. Seriously. Plus, what SPP said.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom << You're the enemy.>> Hey SPP, your an Atty show me in where in the US Constitution is says that it is a responcibile role of the Federal Government to subsidizing indegent children?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The clerk, in letting Scrooge's nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge's office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him. 'Scrooge and Marley's, I believe,' said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. 'Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr Scrooge, or Mr Marley?' 'Mr Marley has been dead these seven years,' Scrooge replied. 'He died seven years ago, this very night.' 'We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,' said the gentleman, presenting his credentials. 'It certainly was, for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word liberality, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back. 'They are. Still,' returned the gentleman,' I wish I could say they were not.' 'The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge. 'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.' 'Are there no prisons?" 'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. 'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?' 'Both very busy, sir.' 'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.' 'Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, 'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?' 'Nothing!' Scrooge replied. 'You wish to be anonymous?' 'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.' 'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.' 'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." ---from A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom So in other words you can't show where in the US Constitution is says it is a legitimate role of the Federal Government to subsidize indegent children. Don't worry, I can wait for you to find it.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>No, I think the parents should be put behind bars for child abuse. It is a parents fundemental responcibilty to feed their own children not someone elses (period).<<< Who will be paying for the care of these children while their parents are behind bars? Would you just put them out on the street and let them starve so the government won't have to pay for them, while their parents are behind bars getting food, shelter, free dental and medical care?
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>So in other words you can't show where in the US Constitution is says it is a legitimate role of the Federal Government to subsidize indegent children<<< Do you think every morally RIGHT thing to do in life is spelled out in the Constitution? What do the people in other countries use for their moral gauge? What about the original U.S. Constitution? It didn't call for equal rights for women or blacks. These amendments that have been added aren't REAL constitution, are they. Would you have them removed?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Who will be paying for the care of these children while their parents are behind bars? Would you just put them out on the street and let them starve so the government won't have to pay for them, while their parents are behind bars getting food, shelter, free dental and medical care?>> Again, show me where in the US Constitution it says it is a legitimate role of the Federal Government to subsidize indegent children.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Do you think every morally RIGHT thing to do in life is spelled out in the Constitution? What do the people in other countries use for their moral gauge? What about the original U.S. Constitution? It didn't call for equal rights for women or blacks. These amendments that have been added aren't REAL constitution, are they. Would you have them removed?>> No where in the US Constitution does it say it is a legitimate role of the Federal Government to subsidize indegent children. That is a role of state Government. And however your state wants to handle that is up to your state. If your state wants to give everyone on welfare 40 acres and a Lexus, that's your business and not mine.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So in other words you can't show where in the US Constitution is says it is a legitimate role of the Federal Government to subsidize indegent children. Don't worry, I can wait for you to find it." I never said it did. Why are you asking me? Why not respond to what's been said to you instead? What would you tell the family in my example? What would you do if Georgia decides they're going to lynch all gay people? Nothing in the Constitution says they can't. It's just as absurd and stupid as what you're suggesting. Time to man up and take responsibility for yur fellow man, instead of me me me me me Tom, 'cause you never know when you too will need a hand. Karma can be a real bitch.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And irony just flies right over your head too, eh KT? Built too low? Dickens wasn't very tall either.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<What would you do if Georgia decides they're going to lynch all gay people? Nothing in the Constitution says they can't.>> Actually there is a little blurp about "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence which was adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776. A little know history fact: Massachusetts still has a law on the books that says anyone from Rhode Island caught in Massachusetts for any crime could be lynched without trial. Fortunatley Federal Law supercedes that.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <<What would you do if Georgia decides they're going to lynch all gay people? Nothing in the Constitution says they can't.>> Actually there is a little blurp about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence which was adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776. Fixed it. And gee, if you're going to cite that, we can fit a food program in there, too. Can't have life without food. Thanks for doing our research.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>Actually there is a little blurp about "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence which was adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776.<<< I guess you don't think that applies to children.
