jwilson07: Lets change the title to something honest. Such as "140,000 parents too lazy to work want free lunch so they can piss away the money otherwise spent there on drugs and alcohol, as usual." I thought a little honesty might help all you libtards to get a clue about the real world.

Even if that's true, it's not the kids fault their parents are douchebags.

This country is run by piece of shiat, and populated by morons.

People support republicans because they don't want free food or free child care or free govt services

THEY WANT JOBS

When a person has a job they can buy food and child care

Since people today have no jobs and no path to employment they feel the urge to support whoever will make it seem like jobs will come.

The dems need to figure a way to convince people that there will be new jobs coming RIGHT NOW. Not tomorrow, no shared sacrifice, no moral bs.

We need jobs

It's not about which side is right or wrong, its about which side says, WE WILL GET YOU A JOB!

MaudlinMutantMollusk: cman: what_now: Guys, I think you're missing a very important factor in all of this: some of those children are not white.

Pay attention, children, this is how you shame people into compliance: accuse them of racism.

Well, they're completely unfazed when you point out their utter lack of compassion and humanity

/might as well go for a sensitive spot

Why do you think the only way to be compassionate is through government? Have you heard of private charity?

goorange: People support republicans because they don't want free food or free child care or free govt services

THEY WANT JOBS

When a person has a job they can buy food and child care

Since people today have no jobs and no path to employment they feel the urge to support whoever will make it seem like jobs will come.

The dems need to figure a way to convince people that there will be new jobs coming RIGHT NOW. Not tomorrow, no shared sacrifice, no moral bs.

We need jobs

It's not about which side is right or wrong, its about which side says, WE WILL GET YOU A JOB!

I'll get you a job RIGHT NOW, if you send me the entire contents of your bank account, along with your wife dressed up for sexy time.

justadadX3: Hmmm - I really like how y'all get each other all frenzied up on an issue that you clearly all agree with. In fact - let's tax the snot out of anyone earning a lot of money - generally that is about $50k/year more that "you" earn - (where "you" is whoever is asked what a lot of money is).

And yet - there seems to be virtually zero understanding about how income tax works on this thread. You assume that

FAIL

skullkrusher: meat0918: A parent could save money and give their kid better food if they sent them with lunch.

was always how I rolled. Except on Fridays because French bread pizza is da bomb

I make my son's lunch every morning before I head to work, unless it's been made the night before (as today's was). We've been questioned why he doesn't eat the school lunch by the principal. It was to find out if we qualified for free or reduced lunches (we don't), not to criticize our (his really) selection of food.

I don't have time for any of your nonsense, Lemon.

giftedmadness: Have you heard of private charity

I have . Private charity is a noble endeavor that is, and always has been, incapable of adequately addressing the needs of the poor on it's own.

Genevieve Marie: namatad: spiderpaz: chiefsfaninkc: Here is an interesting idea why don't poor people quit having children they cannot feed?

If only there was some kind of pill women could take until they were ready to have a child. Oh right, there is, but Republicans try relentlessly to prevent women from having access to it.

If only there were some kind of education program which would talk about pregnancy, safe sex and birth control. Oh wait, we had one of those and the GOP replaced it with just say no and abstinence only.

If only there was some way a woman could safely terminate a pregnancy because she fears that she won't have the resources to raise a child. Oh wait, there is, Republicans just constantly try to prevent women from accessing it.

find a live volcano and sacrifice the child to Mammon. he will see to it that you have a prosperous life.

Those kids WANT to be hungry. If they really wanted to be fed, they would be out WORKING.

/I'm going to go burn my clothes and shower now.

Philip Francis Queeg: goorange: People support republicans because they don't want free food or free child care or free govt services

THEY WANT JOBS

When a person has a job they can buy food and child care

Since people today have no jobs and no path to employment they feel the urge to support whoever will make it seem like jobs will come.

The dems need to figure a way to convince people that there will be new jobs coming RIGHT NOW. Not tomorrow, no shared sacrifice, no moral bs.

We need jobs

It's not about which side is right or wrong, its about which side says, WE WILL GET YOU A JOB!

I'll get you a job RIGHT NOW, if you send me the entire contents of your bank account, along with your wife dressed up for sexy time.

You Trollin?

Genevieve Marie: namatad: spiderpaz: chiefsfaninkc: Here is an interesting idea why don't poor people quit having children they cannot feed?

If only there was some kind of pill women could take until they were ready to have a child. Oh right, there is, but Republicans try relentlessly to prevent women from having access to it.

If only there were some kind of education program which would talk about pregnancy, safe sex and birth control. Oh wait, we had one of those and the GOP replaced it with just say no and abstinence only.

If only there was some way a woman could safely terminate a pregnancy because she fears that she won't have the resources to raise a child. Oh wait, there is, Republicans just constantly try to prevent women from accessing it.

Why don't you want women to be punished for having sex?

Mikey1969: It's the Christian thing to do, people...

When "Christian" is defined as:

"Claiming to do things in the name and manner of Jesus Christ, while not actually following any of His teachings"

So the only way to help out the poor is to use the government? Typical liberal logic.

fracto73: Lost Thought 00: Why the f*ck should children have to pay for their food? Shouldn't all school meals be free? What's wrong with our society that we have to turn a profit by feeding kids?


School lunches don't turn a profit.

Sodexho disagrees

Motherf*ck. People are defending this? Please grab the nearest sharp object and eviscerate yourselves.

cman: what_now: Guys, I think you're missing a very important factor in all of this: some of those children are not white.

Pay attention, children, this is how you shame people into compliance: accuse them of racism.

Pay attention, children, this is how you avoid defending cutting services for poor children while maintaining a tax cut on the super wealthy. Deflect, DEFLECT, DEFLECT

Genevieve Marie: Also, I don't know if this is still the case but it was when I was a kid- they'd make it very clear who was receiving free lunches. I hope that's not how it's still done.

I don't think so... For awhile there, my wife and I were getting either free or reduced meals for the boys, and I don't remember there being any kind of major declaration of it. Now we can afford them just fine, but it wasn't always that way. One nice thing they have also is the chance for kids to work in the cafeteria in exchange for lunch. Obviously they can't accommodate every kid, but it sure helps those who need/want to do it. It also actually gives my stepson something to list on a resume for his first foray into the job field at 16, which is also nice.

Don't have children you can't farking afford, cause I'm not going to raise them for you.

There should be mandatory IUDs for all teens, with removal contingent on making enough money to support them.

Okay republicans, let me explain this once again.

Low income students are going to grow up to either be low or middle income people. If you feed them and educate them they might make it into that middle income range where they pay useful amounts of income tax. This income tax might actually help to pay off the debt baked up by gov't over spending.

A tax dollar invested in a kid today can produce twenty tax dollars in return. Which you can then spend on future pork programs. Actually, I suspect you've already spent that money.

meat0918: Corporate Self: soy_bomb: Corporate Self: We as a nation need to decide who is more important: the top 1% or the bottom 99%.
Money rules all because we collectively choose to allow it to do so.

I would say the top 50% that pay 97% of all income taxes.

/or you could go with the top 10% that pay 70% of all income taxes
//its amazing how little income you need to be in the top 10%

fark you and your talk of percentages and money. People like you are the problem. Are you even human?

I would expect, if 1% of the people had 90% of the money, for them to pay 90%+ of the taxes collected, and I have no problem with that.

It's a nonsense talking point. Of course those that make more money are expected to pay more in income taxes.

Is there anything else from the No Shiat Sherlock Institute of Economics today?

This is why I think the explorations into the Sales Tax solution instead of income-based tax at least have some merit. Everybody pays, even those who have jobs that don't generate income, such as drug dealers... Yeah, I know it isn't as simple as that, but I feel that if it was approached by people WITH a brain and WITHOUT an agenda, something could be designed that would work. Get around the issue of poor people by not taxing the necessities of life, such as food, or tax them very low, make the rate higher the more 'luxury' the item becomes, and go from there. Get rid of tax shelters and get the people being paid under the table or through illegal means to contribute, and things would change.

Once again, it's an idea that would never work in a million years because it would require too much cooperation between people on opposite sides of the equation...

justadadX3: and yet as JFK demonstrated quite nicely - cutting marginal tax rates spurred economic activity and increased tax revenues. If your real objective is to increase tax revenue, then you need to reward job creation

Actually, Kennedy's tax cuts were targeted to the demand side, not job creators. That's probably why, as you concede, they were massively stimulative, unlike the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which have failed to produce jobs after a full decade.

Objective reality: it would like a word with you.

Link

"Kennedy, it turns out, initially wanted to use government spending, not tax cuts, as the means to put dollars in people's hands. But that idea ran aground in 1962 because conservatives in Congress opposed it, while the president's aides feared that the bond market might respond to additional spending with higher rates that could offset their gains. Still, even as Kennedy accepted tax reduction as the first step along the route to growth, he never gave up his spending idea. "First, we'll have your tax cut," he told [his top economic advisor]; 'then we'll have my expenditures program.'"

I do say I'm glad to see we agree so closely on Kennedy's recommended course for our economic policy. More demand side tax cuts, and more social spending indeed will help dig our country out of the hole we found ourselves in after the Bush years.

wildcardjack: Okay republicans, let me explain this once again.

Low income students are going to grow up to either be low or middle income people. If you feed them and educate them they might make it into that middle income range where they pay useful amounts of income tax. This income tax might actually help to pay off the debt baked up by gov't over spending.

A tax dollar invested in a kid today can produce twenty tax dollars in return. Which you can then spend on future pork programs. Actually, I suspect you've already spent that money.

Right, but Republicans would rather funnel much larger amounts of money to private prisons. Where is the profit if you prevent all of the massive societal costs of poverty?

giftedmadness: So the only way to help out the poor is to use the government? Typical liberal logic.

Well, we can't rely on the "Christians" to do it anymore, they only fight for the children while they're still in the womb. After that, it's 'Fark 'Em'. That's typical Right Wing "logic".

Mikey1969: giftedmadness: So the only way to help out the poor is to use the government? Typical liberal logic.

Well, we can't rely on the "Christians" to do it anymore, they only fight for the children while they're still in the womb. After that, it's 'Fark 'Em'. That's typical Right Wing "logic".

Yeah, Christians never donate their time or money to help the poor out. lmao

Election-year Fark is great. You get the best in troll headlines that attract every Fark handle working for a political party, employed to desperately outdo each other with comments so idiotic they'd make a special-ed teacher cringe from the unabashed retardation on display.

I'm sorry, did I say "great"? I meant "crap".

/The slim hope that those frothing-at-the-mouth to be overtly idiotic must be getting some kind of compensation is the only thing that sustains me.

skullkrusher: meat0918: skullkrusher: meat0918: A parent could save money and give their kid better food if they sent them with lunch.

was always how I rolled. Except on Fridays because French bread pizza is da bomb

I make my son's lunch every morning before I head to work, unless it's been made the night before (as today's was). We've been questioned why he doesn't eat the school lunch by the principal. It was to find out if we qualified for free or reduced lunches (we don't), not to criticize our (his really) selection of food.

That's absurd to me. If the administration doesn't fault his lunches why the dark should they care whether you qualify or not?
Kid is well taken care of that should be the principal's only concern.

Dude, that exactly what meat0918 was saying. The principal was trying to see if the meat0918 family was too proud to ask for assistance in an attempt to make sure little meat0918 was well taken care of.

giftedmadness: Mikey1969: giftedmadness: So the only way to help out the poor is to use the government? Typical liberal logic.

Well, we can't rely on the "Christians" to do it anymore, they only fight for the children while they're still in the womb. After that, it's 'Fark 'Em'. That's typical Right Wing "logic".

Yeah, Christians never donate their time or money to help the poor out. lmao

As has been said before, only an idiot would think private charity is enough to address the issues and concerns the poor in America have.

I mean private charity is nice and all, but it can't solve the problem on its own.

Kuroshin: choo: And instead of hiring cafeteria workers, why don't we let these schoolchildren purchase, prepare and serve these nutritious meals as a sort of "job-training" program?

Probably already been said, but some schools already do that.

Well, if by "schoolchildren" you limit it to high-schoolers.

It's actually a really good idea. More schools need to have more focused training toward the end of the line. Culinary training is a marketable skill. Doesn't pay for shiat, but jobs are easy to find.

I see it as important not so much as a job skill, but a life skill. Think about how prevalent the consumption of processed foods is in the less fortunate members of our country. If we can actually teach kids how to properly handle and cook real food, we could help bring down the amount of processed foods these people are consuming and, hopefully by extension, also curtail future health issues directly attributable to the consumption of just plain unhealthy foods.

Republicans want to force women to not have abortions, touting the sanctity of life in the womb.

Born babies will then be starved by Republicans, disregarding life altogether.

You can't explain that!

giftedmadness: Yeah, because the only way you can help the poor is by taxing people. You are a moron. Have you ever heard of private charity?

The middle class doesn't have enough money to give as much as is needed to private charity, while the upper class rarely gives anything to private charity (not without reporters and fanfare, anyway).

/Reposting sans the "Troll" remarks.
//Why was that deleted but "You are a moron" wasn't?
///Doesn't really matter, just curious.

The French seemed to have the right idea...

giftedmadness: Mikey1969: giftedmadness: So the only way to help out the poor is to use the government? Typical liberal logic.

Well, we can't rely on the "Christians" to do it anymore, they only fight for the children while they're still in the womb. After that, it's 'Fark 'Em'. That's typical Right Wing "logic".

Yeah, Christians never donate their time or money to help the poor out. lmao

Do they do it in large enough quantities to keep a roof over the head and food in the belly of every single poor person in the country?

Meh, if you just got rid of all those pesky labor laws the kids could all get jobs being janitors, miners, or chimney sweeps.

Callous: It blows my mind that anyone thinks that giving more money to either the federal government or big business will ever benefit the poor.

You don't believe in food stamps?

Callous: tricycleracer: Daraymann: So if we raise taxes on millionaires, ALL of the money will go directly to feeding poor children who's parents are too farking irresponsible to do it on their own?

Only a true liberal would believe this.

/THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

And if we lower taxes on millionaires, ALL of the money will go directly to employing the parents of poor children who can now afford to buy food.

Only a true Republican would believe this.

/THINK OF THE MILLIONAIRES!

It's almost like neither of these plans will ever actually farking work. Like no matter who you give the money to they will piss it away on nonsense rather than anything beneficial.

It blows my mind that anyone thinks that giving more money to either the federal government or big business will ever benefit the poor.

Seriously. What has the government ever done to benefit poor and working people? I get so angry about this while arguing with people on the Internet, most of whom learned to write and think in public schools and universities. I'm a little peckish, so I might get in my air bag-equipped Chrysler and drive on the roads to get some KFC, who are legally prohibited from providing me unsafe food. A lot of people are crazy drivers, so I am glad that we have traffic lights and a justice system to punish the other person if I get hit by an uninsured driver.

Ha Ha! Sucks to be poor.