Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<"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.>> I have no idea what is going on here. I go to bed and find this the next day. I have agreed with SPP on other issues like High Speed Rail in California. But this guy is unhinged. I really resent that SPP has repeated called me "ignorant","stupid" and my posts "vomit". But to somehow draw a comparison between me and former Penn State Coach Sandusky is completely uncalled for. And to post on LP that I am worse than an alleged pedifile I find to be particularly despicable. Is LP going to stand for these sort of posts from SPP?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom That definatley got posted to the wrong place. Ah well! I guess everyone gets to read my report to the moderators.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Post # 54 <<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 DDMAN26 I never said once that any child should go hungry, so let's stop that lie right there. My argument has been that it should be up to the schools and the parents to provide for the children. And if it's difficult then reach out to local businesses. I'm sure there's plenty that would love to do their part. We shouldn't just rely on Congress. In a way I sort of agree with Hillary Clinton when she said it takes a village. I recently spoke with someone who's company provides backpacks for school children throughout several states. And the deal is that every student not just the underprivileged would receive a back pack at the beginning of the year. And every week in the backpack they were sent home with healthier and nutricious food. But the catch was the kids had to attend all five days of school and they had to participate. Now if a student didn't want to take home anything they didn't have to. But since they started this program at these schools the kids have enjoyed coming to school more and test scores have gone up. So he proposed this program to the school district here? And did they say what a fantastic idea? Oh no they told him that he'd have to go through an attorney because they needed a list of foods. Because one kid might be allergic to what's being provide and is it really worth it. This is what the school board told him. This is why I hate our local school system sometimes, because somebody wants to do something for the kids and they reject it.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>I never said once that any child should go hungry, so let's stop that lie right there. My argument has been that it should be up to the schools and the parents to provide for the children.<<< Headlines in my local paper today: "(Our school district) braces for trigger cuts." The story is about how another $3 million will be cut from our district budget mid-year. We already had $8 million cut from our budget before this school year started. Where will the money come from to subsidize the healthier lunches?
Originally Posted By DyGDisney And this: >>>Because I would hate to believe that some LPers truly don't have the ability to understand how life can quickly turn upside down for people through no fault of their own. Any one of us here is only a certain number of paychecks away from being in deep, deep trouble.<<<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Here's the thing, though. Allergies are real. If this guy is altruistic enough to do this, he should be altruistic enough to provide a list of foods he's providing - how difficult is that?
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Kennesaw Tom, did you read what davewasbaloo said? You repeated yourself so I'll quote him, because I agree: >>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.<<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Post # 54 <<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.>> Normally one doesn't simply quote one's one post without referencing someone else's. You've already said that, and your odd view of the Constitution has already been refuted.
Originally Posted By dshyates If people are poor, it is their own fault! They all are stupid and irresponsible. Then they want me to feed their kids. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any kids going hungry, but I ain't giving the scum a dime!
Originally Posted By DyGDisney When my daughter was at her first school, with the high free and reduced lunch rate, one of her teachers provided a healthy snack for every child in her class every day. She asked simply that every parent send in $2.00/month to pay for the snacks. One other parent and myself were the only ones to send in the money every month. But that teacher still brought the snacks. That was her mission.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<My argument has been that it should be up to the schools and the parents to provide for the children. And if it's difficult then reach out to local businesses.>> Why does it always come back to making people rely on voluntary charity? Do you really believe that we can expect that businesses and other local organizations will always "do the right thing" and provide a consistent level of giving across the whole country? If we rely on local communities and businesses to provide funding for lunches, how do we ensure that all school children in this country have access to the same level of assistance to eat, if required? There's no way that we can depend on voluntary giving year after year to fund these types of programs. And what happens if they don't give - who steps in to fill the gap so that these children don't go hungry? Wouldn't it be better, and more efficient, to just use some of the tax dollars collected from everyone to ensure that children all across the country, that are enrolled in school, get at least one good meal each day? How is that not a good use of the tax payers money?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 >>>Because I would hate to believe that some LPers truly don't have the ability to understand how life can quickly turn upside down for people through no fault of their own. Any one of us here is only a certain number of paychecks away from being in deep, deep trouble.<<< This just applies to me and doesn't represent others that are less fortunate in our society. I want to make that perfectly clear. But unless my family or a friend was willing to help me out I would not take one dime through subsidies. I have no issue if my tax money goes to specialized programs and as I mentioned before I donate to private charties myself that help those less fortunate. I'm not saying that others who do it are lazy and selfish I'm saying that I wouldn't do it. I'm not saying that others who do it are lazy and selfish I'm saying that I wouldn't do it. I'm not saying that others who do it are lazy and selfish I'm saying that I wouldn't do it. I'm not saying that others who do it are lazy and selfish I'm saying that I wouldn't do it. I'm not saying that others who do it are lazy and selfish I'm saying that I wouldn't do it. I'm not saying that others who do it are lazy and selfish I'm saying that I wouldn't do it. I'm not saying that others who do it are lazy and selfish I'm saying that I wouldn't do it.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<If this guy is altruistic enough to do this, he should be altruistic enough to provide a list of foods he's providing - how difficult is that?>> I'm not 100% certain but I'm sure he did.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>But unless my family or a friend was willing to help me out I would not take one dime through subsidies.<<< I don't believe that one bit.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I remember seeing this CBS Evening News report just before summer. It has haunted me since then. Please take a look at it. We can do better than this in a nation with as much wealth as we have. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/09/eveningnews/main20070437.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...37.shtml</a>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Normally one doesn't simply quote one's one post without referencing someone else's. You've already said that, and your odd view of the Constitution has already been refuted.>> <<Kennesaw Tom, did you read what davewasbaloo said? You repeated yourself so I'll quote him, because I agree: >>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.<<>> The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States. The first three Articles of the Constitution establish the three branches of the national government: a legislature, the bicameral Congress; an executive branch led by the President; and a judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court. They also specify the powers and duties of each branch. All unenumerated powers are reserved to the respective states and the people, thereby establishing the federal system of government. The key phrases in the paragraph are: -The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. -All unenumerated powers are reserved to the respective states and the people. School lunches are a STATE issue, not a Federal issue. So please, my all means find a single post where I said a child should starve.
