Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<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.>> I don't think when Thomas Jefferson wrote that we was talking about feeding the indigent masses. But your welcome to go through the tomes of Jefferson's writtings.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Fortunately, I don't use the US Constitution as my moral code, I use the Bible. Maybe the Tea Party folks should do the same. Leviticus 19:9-11 9 " 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God. Deuteronomy 15:11 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land. Proverbs 29:7 7 The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern. Luke 14:12-14 12Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,14and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
Originally Posted By tiggertoo "Maybe the Tea Party folks should do the same." Ironically, these are the same people who profess this nation to be one founded on Christian principles. Where is THAT in the Constitution, KT? Then when you are finished justifying it, explain again why this "Christian nation" should feed, clothe, and house the indigent. Honestly, Tea party folk seem more in tune with the money changers Christ tossed for the Temple than anything Christ said.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo ...should NOT feed, clothe, and house the indigent. But I'm sure you all already caught that.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "SPP, I take it Constitutional Law isn't your forte." Ah, so now we get personal. You're asking asinine questions to start with, and as I told you before, I never said anything about food programs being in the Constitution. You, apparently, have a problem answering our questions derived specifically from vomit you've spewed here. We can take as fact then, since your silence speaks volumes, that you'd rather see a kid starve than eat nutritious food supplied by the federal government. I don't know what's worse, letting a kid starve on purpose, figuratively screwing the kid, or what Jerry Sandusky allegedly has done, literally doing it. I'm going with starving a kid. Makes you worse than Sandusky.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "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?" No one said it was in in the Constitution, but there is such a thing called human decency. If we see a wrong, like starving children, we have a moral obligation to do so. In this country, we do so by paying taxes into social programs like free school lunches. It really makes me mad when ultra-conservative politicians throw their Christianity in people's faces or use it to gain votes while at the same time completely ignoring the lessons of the Bible. They will fight to the death for school prayer but forget such passages as: ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "we have a moral obligation to do so" should be "we have a moral obligation to do something about it."
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 And on the subject of nutritious school lunches, I have to say that I am really lucky in the school district my kids go to. My kids only get to buy lunch once a week, but every lunch comes with a salad bar trip, a hot vegetable, and some sort of fruit. And, while the lunches are not as nutritious as I make for them, they are a lot better than in most public schools. There is always a vegetarian option available, and they do not serve any desserts with the meals like they do in some schools unless it is a special occasion, like the Field Day BBQ.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <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> Actually, there is the passage about promoting the "general welfare." Now you may argue that they didn't mean school lunches, but you can't argue that well-nourished young people would fit that description and that a case could be made for it on that basis, whether you agree with it or not. Also (and more to the point), you misunderstand the Constitution if you hold that something must be specifically mentioned to be a Federal responsibility. The Constitution doesn't mention computers, automobiles, airplanes, telephones, labor law, and countless other things that do quite properly fit under federal law, in whole or in part. Periodically people will try to argue that certain things, from Social Security to the GI Bill are "unconstitutional," using reasoning similar to yours, but the courts have found against that time and again. You're free to continue to argue it, but you don't have much to stand on.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Princessjenn5795: Indeed. Extreme conservativism are exactly the type Christ was referring to when he said: "These people draw near unto me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me." Matthew 15:8 And I mean that quite literally. For it was the most conservative, dogmatic Jews (e.g. pharisee and sadducees) to whom he was referring. Interesting how that parallels today's conservatives and so-called Christians.
Originally Posted By ecdc The assumptions made by "Christians" about the poor astounds me. There seems to be tremendous animosity and hatred towards people that some think should somehow be doing things differently or "better." Wow.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Tom, you shock me, I cannot believe you used to be a social worker!!!!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo The constitution is an antiquated document written when the world was a different place. More important than the constitution is the UN Bill of children's rights. It is our moral duty to do what is right to help children out of poverty, and there is a huge body of evidence that show the importance of healthy eating in the early years. Also, there is a lot of ignorance re healthy eating. Not to mention the long term impact of poor eating. Also add, there are a hell of a lot of people like SPH mentioned. Especially if ill health fit in. Tom, your views disgust me and strike me as ignorant and selfish.
Originally Posted By dagobert I'm so glad that over here we are not forced to eat at school. During break we could eat wherever we wanted to. Our high school day only lasted from 8am to 2pm and two times a week until 4pm. So usually there was no need to eat at school and most schools over here don't offer school lunch. Nearly everyone brings food from home and during lunch break we got something from the supermarket or from a bakery and sometimes we ate at McDonalds. I mean sometimes, because McD is very expensive over here. A regular burger comes for 3 to 5 Euros and that doesn't include fries and a coke. By the way the smallest size for soft drinks in the US is the biggest size over here. When I attended the University in the US, I've never eaten in the dining halls. The food was grose and there was nothing than a small salad for vegetarians. I feel sorry for the students who had to stay on campus and had to take the University meal plan. I just say Freshmen Fifteen. I'm happy that we can stay wherever we want and eat wherever we want. Come on we are already adults at the age of 18 and are allowed to vote. When I was still going to school, there have been programms in which we learned about the right nutritions. I don't know if that's still happening. In schools you hardly find any vending machines. Most schools have a small shop where you can get food and drinks, but no cafeteria. As I have mentioned before, most students bring their lunch from home.
Originally Posted By dshyates DDMAN is displaying the standard fear that someone somewhere will get a dollar they don't deserve. We must prevent this from happening even if it means children go hungry. KT is demonstrating why conservatives had to coin the phrase "compassionate conservative". Without the moniker, they may be mistaken as dangerously selfish and cold hearted pigs.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I never stated that. What I stated is that I want parents to act like bleeping parents. I apologize for the extremist point of view of adults actually taking responsibility.
Originally Posted By dshyates Right, because all the parents of the kids taking part in the school lunch program are irresponsible. Even if we are paying full price daily. So who cares that what we are paying for is a pile of salt and sugar. I am paying $3 per day/ $15 per week/ $60 per month for my middle schooler. And heaven forbid, my concern be it's nutritional value and not it's profitability to the salt lobby.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I didn't say or even imply all parents. You know what forget it. You're just trying to bait me into an argument that's not going to happen. And I'm not going down that road.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 "The blame falls squarely on the greedy 1% who've spent billions to buy government over the last three decades to do their bidding and ditch on us. Your GOP talking point about pulling one's self up by the bootstraps is nothing but a lie. And as evidenced by last Tuesday's election, the country is finally starting to wake up to the lies and is rejecting them. " While I acknowledge the fact that there are many people out there trying hard to right their ownships and need help- you seem to paint everyone with a broad tea party brush if they feel people need to take some ownership also -- so to mimic your own words- take your bleedingheart liberal crap and shove it also. Neither viewpoint covers all cases..and they need to be viewed individually. I grew up poor- very poor, on the south side of Chicago. We didn;t have 3 meals a day every day ready for us either. But my parents weren't crackheads and drug abusers and gamblers etc.-- They worked multiple jobs to put food on the table and pay the rent. I was the first in my family to go to college- I did so while I worked 2 jobs @ 50 hours a week, but I wanted a better life. I finally found a job that paid for tuition... it would have been much easier to let someone take care of me as many I know did. Yes, it requires luck with drive, but one must attempot to take control of their lives. There is no excuse for multiple generations of poverty that haven't been proven by waves of immigrants that they can be overcome- if there is tremendous effort to do so. If you think that is all a lie, then the US is based on fraudulant tenants. Now that being said I want NO child going hungry and the $ cost involved here in the grand scheme of governmental waste is relatively small - needs to be continued for that reason and that reason only. BUT, what the hell will wake some of these families up then ? Kids having multiple kids while they are still children themselves - alcoholism and drug addiction that occurs so young it robs people of their futures -- lack of family structure ( and no not limited to the nuclear family ) - that allows for stronger bonds to help people thru issues and cocnerns.. it is very easy to blame this all on "The Man' as some of the occupy groups would like to have people believe. There is plenty of corruption in business and givernment that needs to be addressed, but not ALL problems lie there. Most people I know believe some form of this response- Democrats and GOP members alike. Sorry to disillusion you but I don't know a single tea party member... nor do I really want to. Those of us who grew up in lower class ( although we sadly thought we were lower middle class) neighborhoods - with blue collar - poorly educated parents..and somehow have managed to improve our lots in life for our families and their future..reject the nonsense that this is a lie or fallacy.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Agsain, that DOES NOT work for everyone- some people try and fail-- others NEVER try-- but trying to pretend that both these groups don't exist and that is it 100% one way or another is really clueless. I still work with inner city kids ( have for 30+ years) - and I hear /see both sides of this. These kids will be brutally honest with you once they trust you. Why do they trust me- because I once walked in their shoes - in the same schools etc. While one here wants you to believe the days of pulling one up by their bootstraps has past- explain the waves of SE Asian immigrants that come here with not a freakin' dollar among them- and have a language barrier to overcome. Why are there so many success stories there ? Do they all succeed- of course not- but yet many do. There are no guarantees for ones lot in life...I know plenty who escaped poverty and also know many who did not. BUT do not tell those who are still trying that they have no hope- it doesn't happen and some group of people is to blame for all their woes. And again- never make children suffer along the way. We piss away more money on road signage or political kickbacks by far then we spend of food for school children - and we HAVE to find a way to make education much cheaper than it is today, to compete globally. Skinnerbox- I know you seem to remember free education- I am trying to figure out why I had 10 years of student loans to pay back when I graduated ( and that includes some time when my company did pay for part of my education ). You must be much older than me- it was hardly free.
