Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Is it better to feed 280,000 hungry children for 10 years, or use the same money to give a tax break for 3340 millionaires for one year? If you have to ask, you're not a Republican   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 117
    More: Asinine, Republican, tax breaks, House Agriculture Committee, Gangs of New York, school meal  
•       •       •

5181 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Apr 2012 at 4:29 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-04-26 01:20:45 PM  
9 votes:
Guys, I think you're missing a very important factor in all of this: some of those children are not white.
2012-04-26 01:00:42 PM  
7 votes:
Look, we can't be helping the poor and hungry. This is a Christian nation, after all.
2012-04-26 01:33:21 PM  
5 votes:

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.


Sorry cman, but you are wrong. At least inasmuch as how Republican voters are being portrayed by that statement. Since the Reagan era at least, the dog whistle politics of "welfare queens" have been played over and over by the Republican party. They have excelled at getting their voters to see people on the dole as lazy minorities. I bet to the Republican voter, that is the first thing that comes to mind when someone mentions welfare.

Ironically, it is mostly red states, those that are strongly Republican that are the biggest sucklers of the government teat, taking in far more Federal money than they give in taxes. The poor and undereducated in those states have been trained by the GOP pols to think of the lazy immigrants and minorities as the ones getting handouts. They then stretch their own necks out in front of these politicians while handing them a razor blade.

And when their own benefits are cut and they start to struggle even more, they will be told to blame the Democrats. And they will.
2012-04-26 05:05:37 PM  
4 votes:

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


Why?
a) republicans have eliminated teaching about contraception in the poorest states in the nation
b) republicans have drastically cut any measures for family planning in the poorest states in the nation.
c) republicans have drastically cut any ability to get abortions in the poorest states in the nation.

Are you dense, or just blind?
2012-04-26 01:18:44 PM  
4 votes:
It's just not funny anymore. Why does the GOP have a loyal following of poor people who think the millionaires need tax breaks while their children starve? Why does this happen?
2012-04-26 07:13:58 PM  
3 votes:
My siblings and I all had free lunches as kids. Because we literally didn't have enough to eat in the house without it. My parents didn't drink, didn't do drugs, didn't gamble, didn't even leave the house other than to go to work. They made just a few dollars too much for food stamps, housing assistance, health care, etc. Oh hell, your brother's going to be put into the hospital again because we can't afford to treat his asthma properly - that means in a few weeks the power is going to go out because of the extra gas it's going to take to go visit your brother in the hospital once or twice during his stay. What public transportation? In this city? Bwhahhhahaah.

My siblings and I did damn well in school. We worked hard because we didn't want to live like this forever. We counted on the free food at school. There really are good kids who NEED this. I'll pay any amount of tax increase to make sure that the kids who need food can get it. The fact that some find programs like this even negotiable is reprehensible.
2012-04-26 05:25:13 PM  
3 votes:

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

Why?
a) republicans have eliminated teaching about contraception in the poorest states in the nation
b) republicans have drastically cut any measures for family planning in the poorest states in the nation.
c) republicans have drastically cut any ability to get abortions in the poorest states in the nation.
d) republicans have constantly fought against a minimum wage.
e) republicans have constantly fought against health insurance reform, the number 1 reason for bankruptcy.


Are you dense, or just blind?

2012-04-26 05:11:36 PM  
3 votes:

winterwhile: Come on Liberals

Is your war on Women not working?

so we have a new war on starving Fat kids?


God, you realize that by always taking a hardline, you completely and totally lose any ability to persuade? I mean, if you are obviously trolling, go ahead. It blows my mind though, how often you do this same song and dance one-dimensional schtick, that you are so without available entertainment, you have to resort to becoming some sort of caricature. I know, I know, "don't feed the trolls." But really, I refuse to believe that you are that incredibly stupid.

After my father was laid off, when I was a kid, he worked whatever odd jobs he could for years, scrambling to find work. Same with my mom. They lost everything, and it took them years to recover. They were never on welfare, but I know that they had to depend on government assistance for food at the very beginning.

Wasn't my fathers fault. Juvenile diabetes randomly appears, and the company didn't like that (he was a welder). My sister and I, we weren't fat. We lived within our means. The unexpected happened. My parents were not going to let us go to bed hungry.

That's the thing. Nobody on the right likes to talk about the people who actually hit hard times due to a series of events beyond their control. Anybody who would rather see a child miss what might be there one opportunity for a square meal that day, so a rich guy can put even more money in the bank, collecting interest, helping nobody, should burn in hell. I don't believe in hell, but it's people who genuinely think like you talk, Winterwhile, that make me wish it existed, because it would be littered with that sort.

I've said it before, will say it again. I hope it happens to you. I hope you lose everything, and you need help, and you have to turn to the government. I sincerely do.

Ugh.
2012-04-26 05:05:34 PM  
3 votes:

Giltric: I believe you should fight to keep as much of your income as possible no matter if you make 10k a year or 10 billion.


Well then that is where you and I fundamentally disagree. You see, for the person making 10,000 a year, every dollar counts. For the person making $10 billion, after the first $1 billion, its all gravy.
2012-04-26 04:54:03 PM  
3 votes:

randomjsa: Is it better to fund Planned Parenthood or feed children?

I propose slashing all PP funding and using instead to feed children. If you disagree with me then you're a reprehensible monster who doesn't want to feed hungry children.

We could also cut all US ties and funding to the UN, and use that money to feed children.

We could also cut lavish pension and benefits for public sector workers and use that money to feed children.



Why not focus on the actual Republican plan to cut food for kids and give rich folks a tax break? Or are you just trying to cut other things to give rich folks a tax break, because they will get around to your suggestions. Cutting food for the kids for 10 years only pays for 1 year of tax breaks, they need things to cut next year too.
2012-04-26 04:51:26 PM  
3 votes:
www.setoyaki.net

Unfairly victimised and suffocated by regulations and taxes.

4.bp.blogspot.com

Lazy welfare queen getting fat off the government teat.

/This is what Republicans actually believe.
//At this point, Emperor Palpatine would ask them to tone down the evilness.
2012-04-26 01:47:57 PM  
3 votes:
You also spew bullshiat. This country is not just Dems v Repubs. There are many others out there that do not subscribe to the two party system.

They are called "people that won't admit to being Republican"
2012-04-26 01:14:49 PM  
3 votes:
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?
2012-04-26 01:06:53 PM  
3 votes:
I suggest compromise:
Can't we feed 280,000 hungry children to 3340 Millionaires?
2012-04-27 01:31:25 AM  
2 votes:

Giltric: Thrag: Giltric: Thrag: Maybe if you have kept reading...

My initial claim was 30% participation earlier in the thread.

So I got that going for me...which is nice.

You've also claimed that 70% of the food made is thrown out. That's kind of the primary point of your claim. A point that you have utterly failed in any way to even attempt to support.

So you've got that going for you.

It called HACCP and time is cumulative.

If the leftover 70% of food is not thrown out then why do they need another 100% of their budget?


I notice you are still unable to provide any sort of actual cite that 70% of the food prepared is thrown away. You do realize that just repeating your claim does not actually constitute proof, right?

How on earth do you think mentioning the existence of the FDA's Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points system proves that these breakfast programs are preparing food for 100% of the children eligible for the program every day and throwing out 70% of it? Yes, food prepared and not eaten is thrown out, that's not he point of contention here. The point of contention is that you seem to think that these programs actually prepare food for every possible child that might use the program. You haven't shown any evidence that that is how they are actually run.

It sure seems like you unable to actually admit you can't provide a cite so you are just hoping that if you throw irrelevant acronyms and links to articles that you obviously didn't even read through completely nobody will notice that nothing you post actually supports your central claim.
2012-04-26 09:13:34 PM  
2 votes:

truthseeker2083: When I was in sec. 8 housing a few years ago, we had a 600 sqft apt that came equiped with a fridge out of the 60's. Near the end of every month, after my partner's VA disability had all but vanished, we were lucky to have any reason to even open the damn thing. Now that things have turned around and we are leasing our truck (it's our only residence) and hauling freight for decent money with everything we want, we use a simple mantra when things go bad: "Grape Jelly". That's because, near the end of those long months, that was the only thing in that fridge. No ketchup, no mustard, not even a hotdog that had fallen in the cracks. Nothing. When we applied for food stamps, we were offered a whopping $16 a month because we were already getting housing assistance and our 1975 truck was apparently worth too much. So for people to go on and on about the poor having fridges and government houses and all that, sometimes it's still a mis-step away from living under a bridge. We do all we can now to help those we meet on the road that need a little help.

/tldr version: We're the richest nation in the world, let's start acting like it by not letting our own people starve.


Maybe you should have been smart enough to have been born the son of a millionaire governor. Or you should have been smart enough to marry one. As a Republican, I don't believe other folks should subsidize your poor choices in life.
2012-04-26 09:11:15 PM  
2 votes:
When I was in sec. 8 housing a few years ago, we had a 600 sqft apt that came equiped with a fridge out of the 60's. Near the end of every month, after my partner's VA disability had all but vanished, we were lucky to have any reason to even open the damn thing. Now that things have turned around and we are leasing our truck (it's our only residence) and hauling freight for decent money with everything we want, we use a simple mantra when things go bad: "Grape Jelly". That's because, near the end of those long months, that was the only thing in that fridge. No ketchup, no mustard, not even a hotdog that had fallen in the cracks. Nothing. When we applied for food stamps, we were offered a whopping $16 a month because we were already getting housing assistance and our 1975 truck was apparently worth too much. So for people to go on and on about the poor having fridges and government houses and all that, sometimes it's still a mis-step away from living under a bridge. We do all we can now to help those we meet on the road that need a little help.

/tldr version: We're the richest nation in the world, let's start acting like it by not letting our own people starve.
2012-04-26 07:47:26 PM  
2 votes:

giftedmadness: Here is some common sense from the link I provided.

"It has not been easy to implement this concept, however. Lawmakers have yet to discover that government agencies are ill-suited to carry out the subtle task of personal uplift. This mission requires helpers who become personally involved in the lives of their clients. It requires that helpers be mentors who project healthy values. It also requires treating each client as an individual, subject to a different set of expectations and rewards. All this runs against the grain in government, where the pressures of law and regulation push agencies toward behaving in an impersonal, value-free, and uniform manner. In the long run, this leads to handout programs, because handouts are impersonal, value-free, and uniform."

Try reading the whole thing and realize that simply giving money to someone won't lead them out of poverty.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/why-the-war-on-poverty-faile d /


Want to know how I escaped from the poverty I grew up with?

Education and financial help from all quarters.

My parents made sure that I did well in school. We had family that gave them the house I grew up in. We had enough land given to my parents with the house to grow a decent amount of food to put up for the winter. We were on food stamps, WIC, and other programs as they were needed, especially in the mid 80s in Michigan as the auto plants were closing up shop.

I got good grades, but even with those grades, I was only able to get a small portion of my college tuition paid for through private scholarships. I worked all through high school to save money for college too. The rest was federal student aid and private zero interest tuition loans the business my mother worked for offered their employees.

At least tuition was pretty cheap at the time for Michigan Tech. 7K tuition, 3K room and board. I worked every single year I was in college too, both work studies and other less glamorous work in the kitchens on campus, as a janitor, and even fast food.

Every step of my life has involved help from family, friends, and the government. Even with the help from family and friends, I will state, without hesitation, that if programs like Foodstamps, WIC, student loans, and even those boring work studies did not exist, I would not be the successfully employed individual I am today.

I make more money now than I thought I would ever make, even considering getting out of where I grew up and making it big were my goals and motivation for much of my life. It boggles my mind that I have been so lucky. I gladly pay my taxes knowing at least some of it is going to an individual who like me, is trying to escape that poverty or at the very least, make sure their kids get out. It may not be as much as I would like, but it's something.

And now I worry that my kids will grow up to be entitled little twats if I don't make sure they work for at least some of what they have.
2012-04-26 07:09:01 PM  
2 votes:

skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: 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.

They have no issue with his lunches. Presumably he is clean, healthy and suitably clothed. They can obviously afford to care for him. Seems to me that all is well.

Yes. Meat0918 made it very clear that the principal has no issue with the lunches brought in by little meat0918. I don't know what you're talking about and I suspect you don't either. What is your problem with the principal?

My problem is he should mind his own farking business if the sole "evidence" is that meatjr brings a brown bag each day. That's how it should be


You're overthinking this. The principal didn't call the authorities and begin an investigation into meat0918's fitness as a parent. He was doing his job and being proactive and working in the child's interest in the mildest, most inoffensive manner possible.
2012-04-26 06:19:10 PM  
2 votes:
i5.photobucket.com
2012-04-26 05:45:31 PM  
2 votes:

Slaxl: It's just not funny anymore. Why does the GOP have a loyal following of poor people who think the millionaires need tax breaks while their children starve? Why does this happen?


A lot of the population has shiat for brains.
2012-04-26 05:39:47 PM  
2 votes:

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?
2012-04-26 05:29:43 PM  
2 votes:

Soup4Bonnie: Gyrfalcon: But you're assuming 70% of the students didn't show up=waste=food thrown away.

And you're assuming his story actually happened just they way he tells it.


So? If it did, then he's still assuming that 70% of the students never showed up, and they just hocked all that food in the trash. I was merely pointing out that, assuming his story was completely accurate, HIS assumption was probably wrong anyway.

Like a lot of conservatives (or liberals for that matter) he's saying "I saw somewhere where our local schools did a free breakfast program, and only 30% of the students ever showed up SO I ASSUME that the other 70% of the program was wasted, and therefore we should cut it." My version is even if that's factually true, it doesn't mean that the food was automatically thrown in the trash (visions of huge garbage bags full of eggs&bacon) or that the money was spent for nothing, or even that only 30 out of 100 students got breakfast during the whole program.

Even if it is factually true that only 30% of the students eligible showed up, the food was not necessarily "wasted" if what was served was granola bars and apples; if 90 students showed up during the week but it wasn't the same 90 every day, it would average out to 30%, and so on. But it's the assumption that 70% of edible food that's getting tossed in the garbage day after day that allows conservatives to make these ridiculous claims which lets them cut these programs across the board. Because nobody challenges their assumptions as if their assumptions might be factually true.
2012-04-26 05:19:02 PM  
2 votes:

Descartes: Over the past 10 years, the cost of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) has nearly tripled - increasing by 270 percent.


The consequence of "conservative" fiscal policy.
2012-04-26 05:14:58 PM  
2 votes:
Dear Right-wing:

If tax cuts are necessary for job creators create jobs, where are all the jobs that were supposed to be created from the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003?

difficulty: do not include jobs to the Military, Halliburton and Blackwater.
2012-04-26 05:13:47 PM  
2 votes:

BillCo: Here is a better article on the subject.


Based on BillCo's article...

A. A government support program provides money based on certain rules and conditions.
B. We dislike government employees, so there are very few auditors and little oversight
C. We think there might be some fraud.
D. Therefore we should chop the program's funding.
E. The hungry can figure out some other way to feed themselves and their kids (I suggest mana from heaven will come if they'd only pray harder)

Sounds like your typical "Stave the beast because I've got mine" Republican strategy. Cynical and evil.
2012-04-26 05:13:24 PM  
2 votes:
It's easy! More poor people = more soldiers. More soldiers = more wars! More wars = more money! It's brilliant!
2012-04-26 05:10:14 PM  
2 votes:

Giltric: So your claim is that none of the money in this program is wasted?

I'm not saying scrap the whole thing....I guess when all else fails you can always lie about something someone else says, that always wins arguments.


But that's what we're talking about, cuts that would kick all of those kids off the program. The proposal is not to review the program for waste, but to cut it to pay for more tax cuts. Why are you being so dishonest? And how can you survive the irony of accusing others of lying while you're being so terminally dishonest?
2012-04-26 05:07:54 PM  
2 votes:

Giltric: Headso: Giltric: only 30% of the students actually showed up at 7am or 730am for the free breakfast for poor kids

isn't 30% kinda a lot of kids that were helped?

Sure but it doesn;t justify the other 70% of the programs budget that winds up wasted. I don;t have a problem helping those out who help themselves..ie shows up for the help.....help me help you I think is the phrase.


But you're assuming 70% of the students didn't show up=waste=food thrown away. Do you KNOW that? Not all the food would have to be tossed. Nor does it mean that the same 30% of the students showed up on any given day. Maybe the actual total was 50%, but not every child showed up on each day. If ten children show up on Monday, and fifteen on Tuesday, it doesn't mean that ten of the same kids from Monday also arrived on Tuesday--you could have a total of 25 served.

Also, you don't know what was done with the other 70% of the money, or what could have been done. If only 30% of the students are arriving for a 7:30 breakfast, maybe that's too early. Perhaps the money needs to be spent on a mid-morning snack, or diverted to the lunch program. But other things can be done than to cancel the program simply because it's not being fully used as planned.
2012-04-26 05:02:45 PM  
2 votes:

Giltric: How comes its only the defense budget that wastes money and not the helping people budget. Some company could be charging us 10$ for a 6 ounce container of nutritious milk for all I know.


LEAVE THE DEFENSE BUDGET ALONE!!!

i3.kym-cdn.com

/Seems to be the new GOP talking point when it comes to budget cuts
//So serious question: Do you think the Defense part of the budget is riddled with as much waste and fraud as the rest of the government?
2012-04-26 04:57:08 PM  
2 votes:

Tigger: You also spew bullshiat. This country is not just Dems v Repubs. There are many others out there that do not subscribe to the two party system.

They are called "people that won't admit to being Republican"


Yeah, the main difference between a Republican and a Libertarian is the latter's unwillingness to pay for anything they aren't personally using right now.
2012-04-26 04:50:01 PM  
2 votes:

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


I know, with all that freely-available birth control and easily obtainable family planning services available, I wonder why they don't!
2012-04-26 04:48:54 PM  
2 votes:

BillCo: strathcona: BillCo: Here is a better article on the subject.

Frontpage? Are you farking shiatting me?

Sorry, I forgot how much liberals hate facts.


This is the same website that is trying to pin the blame of a massacre caused by a right-wing racist radical on Jihadists
2012-04-26 04:47:39 PM  
2 votes:

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

Oh my God it's that easy. Why has no one thought of this before?

Quick! Start a Facebook status updating campaign! Those solve problems!


People shouldn't have kids they can't take care of, but the reality is that they do, and the kids are not to blame. I know. I come from one of those families.

What if you were one of those children? How would you want to be treated?
2012-04-26 04:38:19 PM  
2 votes:

SlothB77: Cutting taxes for the rich will lead to more prosperity which will lead to well more than 280,000 children who were hungry, no longer being hungry anymore. So, cutting taxes for the rich will actually help out more children.

so awful.


So if you send all of your pay to a rich person, you'll end up making more money than ever, right? Give it a try.
2012-04-26 04:34:54 PM  
2 votes:
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?
2012-04-26 03:47:15 PM  
2 votes:
i46.tinypic.com
2012-04-26 01:29:17 PM  
2 votes:

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
2012-04-26 01:28:38 PM  
2 votes:

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


i7.photobucket.com
"Those boys is not white! Those boys is not white! Hell, they ain't even that poor! They've got refrigerators!"
2012-04-27 02:52:17 PM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: JesusJuice: These people are coming dangerously close to becoming so completely devoid of humanity that it will not be unethical to kill them.


I completely disagree with that statement.

Debeo: Any of you middle class people go to the movies, or have cable TV, or go out to dinner in restaurants when you could be preparing more economical meals at home? How many meals would the money you spend on these discretionary purchases buy for impoverished children in 3rd world nations? And yet you continue subscribing to cable TV, going out to see American Pie Reunion, and making your weekly visits to the Cheesecake factory for their $11.95 fajita poppers while children in Mali starve. Shame on you, you greedy, soulless bastards.

That would be a suitable critique if liberals were arguing that the wealthy should be forced to forgo all of their wealth in order to pay for raising the quality of life of the poor. But that's not our argument and you know it. The argument is that the additional wealth above certain levels should be taxed at a higher rate, i.e.: what's known as a progressive tax code.

But I'm still confused. Many farkers have argued that government spending actually benefits millionaires and the rich oligarchs more than the poor by providing them with customers for their products and educated well fed drones to put to work in their factories. If this is true, then the rich are actually being generous by trying to cut spending - after all, they get more benefit out of it than the poor, right?

It depends on how you measure benefit. If you are saving someone's life by cheaply treating some curable illness that they couldn't pay for, that's a huge benefit to them. But the actual amount of money spent might be quite small, so it's a small monetary benefit.

Likewise, the millionaire whose company relies on employees who were educated at public expense, whose products are delivered to markets via roads built with public funds, and whose goods are protected from theft by police who are public employees may actually be receiving a very large benefit, but one that is hard to measure in precise dollar terms and is rarely counted as a direct monetary benefit at all.

So, do you measure benefits by how much they cost? Or by how much the person would have to pay to duplicate them? Or by how much the person would be willing to pay if they weren't available?
2012-04-26 11:08:40 PM  
1 votes:

Slaxl: It's just not funny anymore. Why does the GOP have a loyal following of poor people who think the millionaires need tax breaks while their children starve? Why does this happen?


img99.imageshack.us
2012-04-26 10:50:26 PM  
1 votes:

btriex: Hey how about we set up a government works project? People can get paid 20 bucks an hour to build infrastructure in this country, entry level, training on the job. I mean FFS we waste more money than that bombing caves on some desert planets.

Get paid well for your federal work!

/Would you like to know more?


The problem with that is, it will actually grow the economy, and the Republicans won't have any of that!

But I agree, hiring people to do public works (with on the job training, or jobs for those already with the skill set to do them) would be one of the best ways to rebuild our national infrastructure and get the economy back on it's feet again.
2012-04-26 10:16:01 PM  
1 votes:
i249.photobucket.com
2012-04-26 09:19:38 PM  
1 votes:
These people are coming dangerously close to becoming so completely devoid of humanity that it will not be unethical to kill them.
2012-04-26 08:34:24 PM  
1 votes:
Haven't read the thread yet, but have any conservatives weighed in to talk about how this budget will protect those 280,000 children from the tyranny of government subsidized nutrition and get them off the cycle of dependency?

Oh, hi there, Cman.

See, this is why I don't vote Republican anymore. That's a rationale, not a reason. Next up we'll be hearing about how important it'd be to instill those children with a strong sense of independence by making them work for their handouts. Because a six year old pushing a broom in exchange for food is completely moral.
2012-04-26 08:19:48 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: Mrtraveler01: Callous: Soup4Bonnie: 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?

Oh, I believe in them, when I worked at the grocery store I saw people buy lobster and shrimp with them all the time, so they definitely exist. Of coarse now they use EBT cards.

You know, I used to work in a grocery store and I never saw someone get THAT carried away with their EBT cards. The worst I saw was someone who used their EBT to get their weekly food and then made a second transaction so they could buy cigs.

I saw it. "All the time" was probably a little too much, but it was far from uncommon.


The worst thing I saw when I was cashiering at the grocery store were total ASSHOLES who were in line behind the foodstamp users, judging them. "Ramen Noodles! Those are so unhealthy!" or "Fresh Strawberries, who does she think she is!?" The worst would unload their groceries onto the belt and then run and look to see what kind of car the food stamper was driving or picked up in. The 3 or 4 times that happened, I raced around the register and repacked their grocery cart and when they came waddling back (90% were obese) I told them that I thought they'd been stealing or had to go to the bathroom. Working in a grocery store sucks, besides huffing nitrous in the cooler, that was my only entertainment.

75% of Americans won't be happy until poor people are eating a thin gruel made from other poor people. (even if they're a car accident and a house payment from being made into gruel themselves.)

//But we had to invade Iraq and kill millions "Because Saddam was mean!"
2012-04-26 08:17:22 PM  
1 votes:

soy_bomb: What happened to shared sacrifice? It is sure as hell not being shared, the burden is being placed on fewer and fewer Americans.


You're right, we should bring back the draft. No exemptions.
2012-04-26 08:12:50 PM  
1 votes:

Lord_Baull: difficulty: do not include jobs to the Military, Halliburton and Blackwater


The actual uniformed military is smaller. Whenever there's an increase to the defense budget, it goes to contractors and equipment. Whenever there's a decrease, it's instant cuts to manpower and benefits. Yet a disproportionate ratio of uniformed servicemembers vote Repuiblican, even though the quality of military life prospers more under Democrats.
2012-04-26 07:35:25 PM  
1 votes:

Giltric: What are the odds that the same kids who can't show up to school for schooling...can't show up early for a free breakfast?


What are the odds you're still making things up and asserting them as facts?
2012-04-26 07:33:10 PM  
1 votes:

gimmegimme: Hmm...what happened in 1980 that began the staggering income equality we have today?


It's A Living with Louise Lasser premiered on ABC?
2012-04-26 07:30:08 PM  
1 votes:

giftedmadness: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/why-the-war-on-poverty-faile d /


So when private charities fail to do the job that the government had previously done in the past, what is the next solution then?
2012-04-26 07:28:29 PM  
1 votes:

giftedmadness: You obviously didn't read the link provided if you're asking such a question. The link disproves the whole idea of the war on poverty. Can you explain why after $5 trillion transferred to the poor that there are still so many poor to help?


Wait, I'm confused as to the talking point du jour. Are anti-poverty programs needless and wasteful because there are still poor people in America? Or are anti-poverty programs making poor people lazy by increasing their quality of life so much they can afford refrigerators and telephones? It's really hard to keep up, so please clarify.
2012-04-26 07:27:25 PM  
1 votes:
giftedmadness
Can you explain why after $5 trillion transferred to the poor that there are still so many poor to help?

You've fallen for a lie. Hook, line, and stinker.

Robert Rector's figure of $5.3 trillion is extremely disingenuous. He cited this figure in reference to the "War on Poverty," but to arrive at such an inflated figure, he had to include solidly middle-class entitlement programs like student loans, school lunches, job training, and Medicaid. Medicaid is by far the largest item in this figure, but three-fourths of all Medicaid goes to the elderly, blind and otherwise disabled. Furthermore, Medicaid represents windfall profits for hospitals and doctors, and can hardly be described an "anti-poverty" program. In fact, a distinguished panel from the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that Medicaid, like any private insurance, should not be counted as annual income for its recipients, especially since the payments go directly to hospitals and doctors.

The inclusion of middle-class entitlements in a figure intended to discredit the "War on Poverty" is a direct reflection on the statistical trustworthiness of conservative think tanks.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfaretrillions.htm
2012-04-26 07:24:51 PM  
1 votes:

giftedmadness: Can you explain why after $5 trillion transferred to the poor that there are still so many poor to help?


30 years of wage stagnation coupled with increasing costs of food, education, health care, gasoline, and everything else might have something to do with it.

If the average American family still got the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would have an astounding $13,000 more in their pockets a year. Imagine that economy.
2012-04-26 07:24:33 PM  
1 votes:
For most of these kids, that's the ONLY meal that they'll get all day. Seriously, that square pizza and 1/2 pint of rotten "chocolate" milk. All day. They hate summers b/c then they're really hungry.

You know what poor or malnutrition does to a child's growing brain? It kills it. There are very valid studies that clearly show that even a few months of poor eating create lags in development that those kids will never recover from. It also makes for poor impulse control which makes for crime. So, glad you can afford that yacht slip, millionaires, I hope that kid who you starved doesn't shoot you in the face for your Lexus 20 years later.
2012-04-26 07:22:51 PM  
1 votes:

gadian: My siblings and I all had free lunches as kids. Because we literally didn't have enough to eat in the house without it. My parents didn't drink, didn't do drugs, didn't gamble, didn't even leave the house other than to go to work. They made just a few dollars too much for food stamps, housing assistance, health care, etc. Oh hell, your brother's going to be put into the hospital again because we can't afford to treat his asthma properly - that means in a few weeks the power is going to go out because of the extra gas it's going to take to go visit your brother in the hospital once or twice during his stay. What public transportation? In this city? Bwhahhhahaah.

My siblings and I did damn well in school. We worked hard because we didn't want to live like this forever. We counted on the free food at school. There really are good kids who NEED this. I'll pay any amount of tax increase to make sure that the kids who need food can get it. The fact that some find programs like this even negotiable is reprehensible.


www.exposemittromney.com

"My friend, I have never come across any service the government can provide better than the public sector. If you needed food or health care, your parents should have paid for it. This is a matter of personal responsibility. If you fall on hard times, the fine people in the community could have held a bake sale. If you want a President who empowers people to make more money, that's me. If you want a President who thinks that people in a society have a responsibility to each other...well, you already have him."
2012-04-26 07:21:26 PM  
1 votes:
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

-John Stuart Mill
2012-04-26 06:57:31 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-26 06:49:08 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-26 06:24:29 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-26 06:14:49 PM  
1 votes:
i5.photobucket.com
2012-04-26 06:13:04 PM  
1 votes:

Geotpf: We call those people "unimportant". If they don't vote, or always vote third party (same result), they are showing they think that the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate are exactly equal in every way and they don't really care about which one wins. So why would any elected official bother to care what they think?


Sorry, being an Independent voter doesn't make you "unimportant". I will vote Dem or Repub, based on the candidate and the issues, I vote a mixed ticket. I (usually*) think both parties are equally good and equally bad, but it doesn't mean that my vote doesn't count. I actually consider it to be more responsible by far than those who vote straight Party lines. I feel in that way, the politicians have to actually do MORE convincing, since I am as willing to vote for their opponent as I am for them when it comes to the letter next to their name.

* I say "usually" because until lately I could respect Republicans and their views, I just disliked SOME of them. John McCain was the last one of these, save for Jon Huntsman. Once McCain went into full pandering asshole mode he started to lose me, Caribou Barbie was the final straw. Before that, I admired that he had the integrity to call torture torture and call out Bush on his "intelligence" in regards to Iraq when the rest of the Party considered it next to treason. UNfortunately, the only Republican I've been able to stomach over the last 4 years or so is Jon Huntsman, and we all saw where 'sane and reasonable' got HIM...
2012-04-26 05:57:53 PM  
1 votes:

DozeNutz: I love how a tax break = taking food from kids mouths. This is how liberals argue.


well, in the absence of the tax break, these cuts could have been avoided and the same net impact on the deficit would have been realized. So, not, it's not directly tied but yes, if you are cutting spending on programs to REDUCE the deficit while reducing revenues at the same time, you're doing it wrong.
2012-04-26 05:42:14 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-26 05:38:09 PM  
1 votes:
Let them eat cake rice and beans.
2012-04-26 05:37:03 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-04-26 05:36:59 PM  
1 votes:

Corporate Self: A Dark Evil Omen: 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.

Some of us are fighting it. Most of the rest who claim to agree with us have a million excuses why they can't or won't stand with us. Apparently imaginary drum circles and the occasional person with dreadlocks are more offensive than wholesale destruction of democracy and civil society.

Sadly, we have largest generation in history comprised of a huge number of entitled self-righteous greedy Boomers that need to die off before any real change can be affected. Until then, they will destroy this country in a deluded attempt to maintain lifestyles they couldn't really afford in the first place. The are willing to listen to, vote for, and throw money at any fool who promises to maintain their delusions.


Well, Occupy is still here, and as the saying goes, we will occupy until change occurs. Some of us, at least, are digging in for a fight that could last the next thirty years or more.
2012-04-26 05:35:42 PM  
1 votes:
If the GOP had been in the SS in 1943,
they would have been kicked out for cruelty.

/Apologies to the Pretenders
2012-04-26 05:24:57 PM  
1 votes:
Here is something I don't get: Why can't the poor eat each other? It would seem to me that is the simplest free market solution as it addresses supply and demand without requiring government intervention. Not only that but it could raise a whole new generation of entrepreneurs(think of veal like enterprises being created) and help put an end to childhood obesity as the slow moving fat ones will be eaten first.
2012-04-26 05:24:36 PM  
1 votes:

SlothB77: Cutting taxes for the rich will lead to more prosperity which will lead to well more than 280,000 children who were hungry, no longer being hungry anymore. So, cutting taxes for the rich will actually help out more children.


PLus if you just give food to the kids they'll grow up thinking stuff is free. On the otherhand, if you give rich people tax cuts then the poor will have an incentive to work harder and be less poor. We don't like giving tax cuts to the rich but it is best for the poor.
2012-04-26 05:19:40 PM  
1 votes:

nekom: Aarontology: Look, we can't be helping the poor and hungry. This is a Christian nation, after all.

WWJD? Cut taxes, that's what he'd do.


Thank You White Jesus!!
2012-04-26 05:17:21 PM  
1 votes:
Listen, everyone. I want you all to know Mitt Romney agrees with you on this issue. Mitt is your friend, on your side and will fight for your beliefs.

Click here if you support tax cuts for the wealthy and a flatter tax - Link
Click here if you are against tax cuts for fat cats and are for a progressive tax code - Link
2012-04-26 05:14:22 PM  
1 votes:

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!
2012-04-26 05:12:44 PM  
1 votes:

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


Oblig:

editorialcartoonists.com
2012-04-26 05:11:06 PM  
1 votes:

winterwhile: Frack the children


You should put that on a bumper sticker.

You could sell it to Republicans, Catholic priests and Big Oil and make a fortune.
2012-04-26 05:10:18 PM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: But you're assuming 70% of the students didn't show up=waste=food thrown away.


And you're assuming his story actually happened just they way he tells it.
2012-04-26 05:10:00 PM  
1 votes:

The Reverend Smith: $33 billion. Hell, that's just a tad more than one year's worth of cash pissed away on Obama's phantom green jobs programs.


Fine, cancel the green sh*t and raise the taxes. There. I just doubled the money coming in. Problem solved.
2012-04-26 05:09:05 PM  
1 votes:

The Reverend Smith: $33 billion. Hell, that's just a tad more than one year's worth of cash pissed away on Obama's phantom green jobs programs.


I missed where President Obama wanted to scrap these programs instead of defense cuts to give the rich more money. Want to throw a link my way, cowboy?
2012-04-26 05:05:10 PM  
1 votes:

Giltric: Sure but it doesn;t justify the other 70% of the programs budget that winds up wasted. I don;t have a problem helping those out who help themselves..ie shows up for the help


The rhetoric from republicans/conservatives always revolves around eliminating or privatizing these kinds of programs not streamlining them. They would actually be a useful political party if they always fought to streamline programs instead of always fighting to add a layer of profit margin to them.
2012-04-26 05:04:50 PM  
1 votes:
I didn't have to ask, and my decision was for the children. A society is measured best by how they care for how they treat the young, the old, the infirm, etc.

I normally lean to the right of the aisle.

Does this mean I have to turn in my card?
2012-04-26 04:58:20 PM  
1 votes:

Mugato: You have to respect the gleefully, unapologetic evil of the Republican party. Governor Scott's latest thing was cutting funding for battered women's shelters. It's like tying a girl to the railroad tracks at this point, it's hilarious


Indeed. These guys are starting to make Snidely Whiplash look like Mother Teresa.
2012-04-26 04:57:45 PM  
1 votes:

Headso: So you libtards are trying to tell me all the poors have refrigerators but no food???


i hear they use those refrigerators for makeshift A/C units and store their food in underground caches with their gold.
2012-04-26 04:57:25 PM  
1 votes:
Actually, you would be a Republican. You'd be Dwight Eisenhower.
2012-04-26 04:56:51 PM  
1 votes:

Headso: Giltric: only 30% of the students actually showed up at 7am or 730am for the free breakfast for poor kids

isn't 30% kinda a lot of kids that were helped?


Yes, but the important thing is that some of the money was wasted, so the only thing for it is to scrap the whole program and let those kids starve.
2012-04-26 04:56:47 PM  
1 votes:
TRICK QUESTION.

If they were fed for 10 years, they wouldn't be hungry, right?

Therefore, tax cuts for the rich.
d3
2012-04-26 04:53:46 PM  
1 votes:

qorkfiend: alaric3: I suggest compromise:
Can't we feed 280,000 hungry children to 3340 Millionaires?

I have an alternate compromise. Let's feed 3340 millionaires to 280,000 hungry children.


That wouldn't last the kids very long. Assuming each fat cat millionaire is on average 250lbs, that is only 835,000 pounds of millionaire. Subtract for bones and other inedible parts, you'd be lucky to get enough food for more than a day or two.

So first, we have to put the millionaires into a breeding program to make it sustainable.
2012-04-26 04:53:45 PM  
1 votes:

SlothB77: Cutting taxes for the rich will lead to more prosperity which will lead to well more than 280,000 children who were hungry, no longer being hungry anymore. So, cutting taxes for the rich will actually help out more children.


www.aaanything.net

/Amazing that after years of showing this to NOT be the case, that people are still buying this BS talking point
//You have to be trolling because no one can be that gullible AND stupid
2012-04-26 04:53:11 PM  
1 votes:
yeah, but how much are those poor kids gonna contribute to my campaign?


God Bless the US Dollar


Government of the Money, For the Money, By the Money
2012-04-26 04:53:06 PM  
1 votes:
It's all part of the GOP plan. Keep these children poor and hungry and sooner than later, they'll have no other choice but to join the military. That way, the GOP's desire to bomb countries with brown people continues to flourish. Don't you get it? Use America's poor brown-skinned people to blow up other countries' poor brown-skinned people. While whitey sits home and makes MORE money. It's brilliant!
2012-04-26 04:52:58 PM  
1 votes:

randomjsa: Is it better to fund Planned Parenthood or feed children?

I propose slashing all PP funding and using instead to feed children. If you disagree with me then you're a reprehensible monster who doesn't want to feed hungry children.

We could also cut all US ties and funding to the UN, and use that money to feed children.

We could also cut lavish pension and benefits for public sector workers and use that money to feed children.


Trick question!

If we fund Planned Parenthood, there won't be as many poor kids to feed!

Besides, if we cut the taxes of millionaires, that's the same as spending money! At least that is what I was told about the 1/3 of the stimulus being tax cuts.
2012-04-26 04:52:51 PM  
1 votes:

randomjsa: Is it better to fund Planned Parenthood or feed children?


If you fund planned parenthood you won't have children to feed, amirite???
2012-04-26 04:51:26 PM  
1 votes:
I read on the internet once how in order to even become a member of the GOP now on a national level you had to either rob a blind man or kick a little cripple child just to prove you're not a liberal plant.

Purity tests are serious business!
2012-04-26 04:51:25 PM  
1 votes:

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


That's why the House Republicans favor increasing funding for Planned Parenthood, right?
2012-04-26 04:49:19 PM  
1 votes:

T.M.S.: How many jobs are those children creating?



Sarcasm aside, this program does create jobs. An increase in people ordering lunch means more cafeteria workers and more work for everyone else along the line from farm to lunch room.
2012-04-26 04:49:14 PM  
1 votes:

cman: kmmontandon: 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.

That's complete bullshiat.

After all, Republicans aren't capable of shame.

You also spew bullshiat. This country is not just Dems v Repubs. There are many others out there that do not subscribe to the two party system.


We call those people "unimportant". If they don't vote, or always vote third party (same result), they are showing they think that the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate are exactly equal in every way and they don't really care about which one wins. So why would any elected official bother to care what they think?
2012-04-26 04:45:55 PM  
1 votes:

Slaxl: It's just not funny anymore. Why does the GOP have a loyal following of poor people who think the millionaires need tax breaks while their children starve? Why does this happen?


Short answer: Jesus, Gays, Abortions, Mexicans, Soshulist sekret moslum, their parents voted Republican.

Long answer: Despite what we want to believe, people are not logical. They do not vote with their self-interest in mind. They vote with their identity in mind. They say to themselves, "What kind of Person am I? What kind of action is this (voting for this guy). Would someone like ME vote for this guy?" What often happens is that people vote with their emotions, they vote with who they "identify" with ("he's Christian, I identify with that guy!" "the opponent is liberal - he's not like me! He doesn't believe in the same things I do!"). Liberals do this too, but they identify with other things.
2012-04-26 04:45:25 PM  
1 votes:
If you give the millionaires the tax breaks, the food will trickle down to the children.

They just need to look for it in the dumpsters.
2012-04-26 04:44:24 PM  
1 votes:
The Republican budget sells this bill as an effort to "reduce lower‐priority spending" to avert military cuts that will otherwise take place in January 2013 due to the debt deal agreed to last summer.

What a bunch of chicken hawk pussies who think that even cutting the Defense budget by 1% would make us weak and vulnerable.

They're hopeless, the lot of them.
2012-04-26 04:43:52 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Or, you could just hope that their actions would cause enough shame, except that this is the Right we're talking about. They have no conscience, and therefore no shame.
2012-04-26 04:43:44 PM  
1 votes:

cman: A Dark Evil Omen: Oh, good. After false starts from cman and BillCo, Sloth is here to white-knight this reprehensible shiat in earnest.

..the fark you talking about?

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.

How is this white knighting?


Deflection. "Shame people into compliance", as if this isn't shameful behavior.
2012-04-26 04:43:20 PM  
1 votes:

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



That works, we could also make it illegal for anyone to fire people from their jobs. That way people have kids they can afford, there is no chance of them becoming poor.
2012-04-26 04:42:57 PM  
1 votes:

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


Oh my God it's that easy. Why has no one thought of this before?

Quick! Start a Facebook status updating campaign! Those solve problems!
2012-04-26 04:42:06 PM  
1 votes:
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"
2012-04-26 04:40:57 PM  
1 votes:
Neither.

That's 2 bombs we could build to blow up our enemies with.
2012-04-26 04:34:56 PM  
1 votes:

alaric3: I suggest compromise:
Can't we feed 280,000 hungry children to 3340 Millionaires?


I have an alternate compromise. Let's feed 3340 millionaires to 280,000 hungry children.
2012-04-26 04:33:02 PM  
1 votes:

SlothB77: Cutting taxes for the rich will lead to more prosperity which will lead to well more than 280,000 children who were hungry, no longer being hungry anymore. So, cutting taxes for the rich will actually help out more children.


This is what Republicans actually believe! LOL
2012-04-26 03:09:17 PM  
1 votes:
Republicans are the greatest threat this nation has ever faced.

/Vote Republican
2012-04-26 03:01:42 PM  
1 votes:
Here is a better article on the subject.
2012-04-26 02:27:51 PM  
1 votes:
Yeah, but has a child ever given you a job? You see, money supply creates jobs. It's called supply side. It's simple economics.
2012-04-26 02:26:17 PM  
1 votes:
Everyone is so quick to make the judgment but perhaps I should be the judge of this issue as I am the person who so much enjoys being the judge of things because I have watched many episodes of Judy the Judging Lady and have learned about how to do the judging. For this purpose I see two sides to this issue. One side of this says that the children should be treated with the respect and the dignity. The other side of this says the rich people should be treated with the respect and the dignity.

The first side of this issue is that the children should be treated with the respect and the dignity upon which we would give to a kitten. This side of the issue says that the special snowflakes must all receive the food even though there is the crisis of which I am speaking of obesity in the country of this. We should give them the food and also the shelter so that these kids do not grow up to kill the rich people out of the spite of themselves. Those would would subscribe to this issue include Jesus of the Christian Faith and Jerry Sandusky.

The other side of this issue says look no one is going to buy a car with fed children. And fed children do not get you to go on the vacation where you create the jobs for the Dominicans at your island retreat. And also no children are going to help to make more money for Mitchell Romney and Annabelle Romney because children are not those who pay taxes unless they go to the working camps. So fark the children.

Now I am not sure which side of this issue would be the side of which I would rule as I have not yet seen the pudginess of the children who are complaining of not having the free lunch of which there is no such thing of. Because look if you give the free lunch to the children then someone might not get the side of caviar with the polar bear steak.
2012-04-26 02:24:26 PM  
1 votes:

alaric3: I suggest compromise:
Can't we feed 280,000 hungry children to 3340 Millionaires?


A modest proposal.
2012-04-26 02:22:14 PM  
1 votes:
Give the millionaires the tax break. Then they'll create a bunch of jobs, and all the hungry kids' parents will get awesome jobs and be able to feed their kids.
2012-04-26 02:20:32 PM  
1 votes:
See America, shiat like this is why the EU and most other industrialized nations make fun of us all the time. They don't feel a urgent need to listen to lectures from a country that has a hard time deciding between feeding low-income school children and shielding millionaires' estates from paying taxes.
2012-04-26 01:30:03 PM  
1 votes:

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.


That's complete bullshiat.

After all, Republicans aren't capable of shame.
2012-04-26 01:21:52 PM  
1 votes:

Rev.K: Holy f*ck.

I thought the headline was some sort of exaggeration or hypothetical, but I clicked the article and sweet f*cking Christ, there it is.


i575.photobucket.com

These people are goddamn tyrants.
2012-04-26 01:18:16 PM  
1 votes:

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?


As long as they clean up after themselves and learn valuable janitorial skills, then I'm all for it.
2012-04-26 01:09:41 PM  
1 votes:
Holy f*ck.

I thought the headline was some sort of exaggeration or hypothetical, but I clicked the article and sweet f*cking Christ, there it is.
 
Displayed 117 of 117 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report