Department of Government Efficiency - DOGE

#426
#426
utvolpj said:
Who is making the lunches for these children?
Click to expand...
You're literally just sitting here inventing reasons why it has to be the federal government and taxpayers. You don't seem to believe in personal accountability and instead just want to shoe-horn tax-burden as community accountability.
 
#427
#427
utvolpj said:
Because some parents just suck and don't care about their kids. Those kids shouldn't suffer because of their parents
Click to expand...

If you’re neglecting your children, you should be charged with neglect.

The answer isn’t to spend insane amounts of money feeding every child in public schools, a system that results in massive waste.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#429
#429
utvolpj said:
Now you're just posting nonsense. Kids eat at school. Those with parents who can't provide much aren't going to be making breakfast and lunches for their kids every day. I actually explained that I see that with kids in the weekends.
Click to expand...

The question isn't should schools feed kids lunch it's who should pay for it, states/localities should be footing the bill.
 
#430
#430
Vol8188 said:
It takes me less than a minute a day. If you refuse to feed your child I have no issue with the parents being charged with neglect.
Click to expand...
They aren't doing it. I get that it may be strange for you to hear but there are lots that simply don't care about their kids. Now you want to spend huge amounts of money instead of just providing for the child. Efficient
 
#431
#431
utvolpj said:
So instead of just buying them lunch worth a couple bucks the state needs to take over their lives? Is this about saving money or just control?
Click to expand...
That's about taking kids from piece of **** parents and trying to find ways to break the cycle.

Take the $$$ you'd be giving the piece of **** parents, put it into room, board and education and break the cycles of the welfare state.

Further, it doesn't have to be state-run orphanages. Again, it could and probably should be charities.

But you're just sitting around trying to create reasons why concerned citizenry can't do what the gov't does. I'm not sure if you're trolling, just refusing to appear wrong, or Karl Marx.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#432
#432
hog88 said:
The question isn't should schools feed kids lunch it's who should pay for it, states/localities should be footing the bill.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the argument currently being made in here at all. To many advocates for govt taking more kids away to raise them.
 
#433
#433
utvolpj said:
They aren't doing it. I get that it may be strange for you to hear but there are lots that simply don't care about their kids. Now you want to spend huge amounts of money instead of just providing for the child. Efficient
Click to expand...
You want to leave kids with **** parents as long as it means big gov't. Shame on you..
 
#434
#434
utvolpj said:
I don't think that's the argument currently being made in here at all.
Click to expand...

Ok, I think everyone should be in agreement that it's the parents responsibility to feed their kids. Now let's go back to jwells ridiculous assumptions that without the federal government playing middle man states/localities wouldn't be providing lunch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, Orange_Crush and Vol8188
#435
#435
utvolpj said:
They aren't doing it. I get that it may be strange for you to hear but there are lots that simply don't care about their kids. Now you want to spend huge amounts of money instead of just providing for the child. Efficient
Click to expand...
Let's revisit why private charities can't provide the meals for this low % of starving kids in America. Tell us again why it has to be the gov't. Why church congregations can't donate money, food, and time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#436
#436
utvolpj said:
They aren't doing it. I get that it may be strange for you to hear but there are lots that simply don't care about their kids. Now you want to spend huge amounts of money instead of just providing for the child. Efficient
Click to expand...

If you’re arguing that this will help us identify child neglect and deal with it, yes, I’m okay with it.

If you’re arguing that it will cost more to remove the kids whose parents neglect them than it will to feed every single child 2 meals daily, I disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#437
#437
Orange_Crush said:
You want to leave kids with **** parents as long as it means big gov't. Shame on you..
Click to expand...
No I would prefer the people get help rather than the state take on the responsibility of raising kids. Many times that turns out worse for the kids
 
#438
#438
utvolpj said:
No I would prefer the people get help rather than the state take on the responsibility of raising kids. Many times that turns out worse for the kids
Click to expand...
OK...
Orange_Crush said:
Let's revisit why private charities can't provide the meals for this low % of starving kids in America. Tell us again why it has to be the gov't. Why church congregations can't donate money, food, and time?
Click to expand...
 
#439
#439
Vol8188 said:
If you’re arguing that this will help us identify child neglect and deal with it, yes, I’m okay with it.

If you’re arguing that it will cost more to remove the kids whose parents neglect them than it will to feed every single child 2 meals daily, I disagree.
Click to expand...
Also, consider the point about the state welfare paying more welfare for more kids. There are literally generations of people that have kids just to get the $$$. As we bemoan the # of parents that don't care about their kids, maybe we should revamp the welfare system that is promoting uncaring parents having these kids? It goes back to the almost inevitable unintended consequences of grand gov't ideas.

If it costs the folks to have kids, they won't have as many. At the very least, if they're not profiting from it, they'd stop having as many.
 
#440
#440
Vol8188 said:
The question isn’t “is feeding kids the right or wrong thing to do”. You keep disingenuously proclaiming that.

The question is who should do it.

I think kids should brush their teeth and take baths, I don’t think their teacher should be scrubbing them down. I don’t think it’s the role of the IRS, department of education, department of energy, nor of any other government department to do so.

It’s beyond disingenuous and insanely pathetic to proclaim not wanting the department of education to do something means I don’t want the thing done.

Children were fed before school lunches. Children will be fed after if they were taken away. If the school is the only place your kid is fed, then we need to address not and that’s not an issue of people just being too poor. It’s blatant neglect
Click to expand...
You keep making these assumptions that "children were fed." It utterly ignores the amount of students who came hungry. Mom wouldn't do the free reduced lunch form? No food, Johnny. Your point about hygiene? Guess who provides some of these kids with the only hygiene items they get? School social workers.

In a perfect world the school wouldn't need to be there to support basic needs....but it is.
In what hell do we live where we, the richest nation on Earth, can't keep our people fed? "Oh well, just go on down to the food bank and rely on the generosity of people rather than take all the money we have and provide basic services."

You say "we need to address" it....but hell, man, it's been decades and decades of hungry kids and now Republicans are mad about "potential food waste" providing meals for CHILDREN. Call it poverty. Call it neglect. Can't get blood from a stone and schools can't go take kids from parents sending them hungry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#446
#446
jwells said:
The People.
Click to expand...
That would include churches and private citizens.

Allowing the willing to do it reduces the tax burden of the community, allows them to use their money to fill the need in a much more efficient manner, moves the answer to the problem closer to the problem. By mandating that the gov't has to do it, one is removing freedom of choice from those who worked for their money. Utvolpj stated that churches wouldn't do it. When given indication that they would gladly do it, he started inventing reason why they can't do it. So here we are.

jwells said:
Yeah, just look up the list of Republican leadership in the TN Gen Assembly.
Click to expand...
That's not an answer. It's just an extension of the same broad brush smears.
 
#449
#449
CobbVol said:
Aren't charities and churches the people?
Click to expand...
We The People in the social contract sense. Relying on charity to prop up a failure of us all to ensure basic services for its poor is wild. Arguing that churches and charities should just....have more money...also doesn't work.
 
#450
#450
Orange_Crush said:
That would include churches and private citizens.

Allowing the willing to do it reduces the tax burden of the community, allows them to use their money to fill the need in a much more efficient manner, moves the answer to the problem closer to the problem. By mandating that the gov't has to do it, one is removing freedom of choice from those who worked for their money. Utvolpj stated that churches wouldn't do it. When given indication that they would gladly do it, he started inventing reason why they can't do it. So here we are.


That's not an answer. It's just an extension of the same broad brush smears.
Click to expand...
No, no, no. Whatever TINY amount of taxes that is going towards school lunches for the whole of the Federal Government doesn't add up to an amount necessary for a congregation to feed the hungry daily.
I mean, why even have a government? Isn't and money paid in taxes used to "remove freedom of choice from those who worked for their money?" Of course, that assumes one completely ignores the entire premise of a representative democracy.

Your math doesn't work.

Any no, it's not a "broad brush smear" to say the PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THIS are who is doing it. Like, you can watch the videos, read the transcripts, and view the proposed legislation.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top