GOP farm bill is a disaster! cuts 23 billion dollars in food assistance to low income children

[basquebromance]

When I was growing up it was school bullies that went after kids’ lunch money, it wasn’t the Congress. This is shameful.

 

[Wyatt earp]

When I was growing up it was school bullies that went after kids’ lunch money, it wasn’t the Congress. This is shameful.

Unemployment is under 4% why do we need it?

 

[basquebromance]

"A number of Freedom Caucus members are offering to trade their support for the farm bill for a vote on the Goodlatte bill, which they believe would kill the discharge petition on immigration."

 

[eagle1462010]

When I was growing up it was school bullies that went after kids’ lunch money, it wasn’t the Congress. This is shameful.

I believe in State's Rights........................................he says they were cut by 2 billion dollars...........propose to pay for it in state............and deal with local problems without the Federal Gov't...........If the people in his state agree then they find a way to pay for it. As it should be.

 

[Andylusion]

When I was growing up it was school bullies that went after kids’ lunch money, it wasn’t the Congress. This is shameful.

But it isn't their money.

Bullies going after a kids lunch money, is wrong and shameful because it is THEIR money.

The money that Congress is cutting, isn't their money. It my money. I'm working, and you are taking it from me in taxes. That give me the right to have a say on where that money goes to, and I don't want it going to school lunch. My parents paid for my food. Your parents should pay for your food.

That's how morally good people operating. Immoral criminals steal other people's money.

You guys are the bullies if anything, trying to take my money that I worked for, and using it for what you want. That makes you the bully and thief.

Not me. You are the immoral one here.

If you want to pay for other people's lunches, by all means go to the school and hand out your hard earned money. That's your right. Let's see you back up your moralizing with action.

Of course you won't. You are all hypocrites to your core.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Every time a Democrat wants to hold on to their goodies, it's always about THE CHILDREN. Democrats remind me of overseas terrorists who hide behind the women and children when we go there to get them, or bunker down in schools and hospitals.

We didn't have much money when I was a child. Our school didn't even have a cafeteria; not even a snack machine. So mom made me my jelly sandwich everyday, and I took that sandwich to school with my milk thermos in my Superman lunch box and survived that way.

When I got older and went to middle-school, that's when I learned about free lunch by the government. The kids who brought money for lunch would buy the free lunch off the kids that got them. If the lunch was $1.50, the kid with the free lunch would sell it for 75 cents. The kid who bought the free lunch saved 75 cents of what their parents gave them for lunch, and both were able to afford a pack of cigarettes at the end of the day.

 

[Mac1958]

This is one of the many issues on which fundamentalist libertarian thinking makes people look just awful.

As a society, we make decisions on who we should help as a group. Children who are poor and undernourished through no fault of their own would be an example.

So we help. Even if the help isn't perfectly efficient. Even if systems don't always work the way they should. We just do it.

One of the many nasty symptoms of commitment to an ideology is an intellectual paralysis that robs the afflicted of a connection with fundamental human nature.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is one of the many issues on which fundamentalist libertarian thinking makes people look just awful.

As a society, we make decisions on who we should help as a group. Children who are poor and undernourished through no fault of their own would be an example.

So we help. Even if the help isn't perfectly efficient. Even if systems don't always work the way they should. We just do it.

One of the many nasty symptoms of commitment to an ideology is an intellectual paralysis that robs the afflicted of a connection with fundamental human nature.
.

It's the attitude of "we just help no questions asked" is how so many came to easily abuse these programs. Then when the discussion comes up, it's always the dichotomy between those who are against the abusers and those who are for helping the real poor.

Most of the states that cut down their food stamp role did so with people who didn't even have children. In states like Maine, they created requirements that made most people drop out of the program and not one child harmed.

So this joker brings up children when it's likely that states who see a reduction in their grants will not even include children. It's just a way to tug at the hearts of Americans so they get their way.

 

[Mac1958]

This is one of the many issues on which fundamentalist libertarian thinking makes people look just awful.

As a society, we make decisions on who we should help as a group. Children who are poor and undernourished through no fault of their own would be an example.

So we help. Even if the help isn't perfectly efficient. Even if systems don't always work the way they should. We just do it.

One of the many nasty symptoms of commitment to an ideology is an intellectual paralysis that robs the afflicted of a connection with fundamental human nature.
.

It's the attitude of "we just help no questions asked" is how so many came to easily abuse these programs. Then when the discussion comes up, it's always the dichotomy between those who are against the abusers and those who are for helping the real poor.

Most of the states that cut down their food stamp role did so with people who didn't even have children. In states like Maine, they created requirements that made most people drop out of the program and not one child harmed.

So this joker brings up children when it's likely that states who see a reduction in their grants will not even include children. It's just a way to tug at the hearts of Americans so they get their way.

That's one of the problems with the ends of the spectrum - we just knee-jerk to or against virtually every issue, not listening to, considering, or giving an inch to the other side.

We should be better than this, don't you think? Who is the first to be the adult in the room?
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is one of the many issues on which fundamentalist libertarian thinking makes people look just awful.

As a society, we make decisions on who we should help as a group. Children who are poor and undernourished through no fault of their own would be an example.

So we help. Even if the help isn't perfectly efficient. Even if systems don't always work the way they should. We just do it.

One of the many nasty symptoms of commitment to an ideology is an intellectual paralysis that robs the afflicted of a connection with fundamental human nature.
.

It's the attitude of "we just help no questions asked" is how so many came to easily abuse these programs. Then when the discussion comes up, it's always the dichotomy between those who are against the abusers and those who are for helping the real poor.

Most of the states that cut down their food stamp role did so with people who didn't even have children. In states like Maine, they created requirements that made most people drop out of the program and not one child harmed.

So this joker brings up children when it's likely that states who see a reduction in their grants will not even include children. It's just a way to tug at the hearts of Americans so they get their way.

That's one of the problems with the ends of the spectrum - we just knee-jerk to or against virtually every issue, not listening to, considering, or giving an inch to the other side.

We should be better than this, don't you think? Who is the first to be the adult in the room?
.

Here is the problem:

We on the right are all for helping out the truly needy. But I stress the word "truly." We would like to see people get off of welfare instead of on.

On the left, the more government dependents, the better; the more likely Democrat voters. So they have no interest in getting people off of these programs. When they get in power, let anybody who wants to get on these programs get on them.

So when we talk about the so-called poor, we are talking about a mixture of people who need assistance and people who are on assistance because they got on so easily and really don't need it.

The solution to the problem of course would be if we only put the truly need on them, but Democrats would never go for that. It works against their political goals.

 

[Siete]

the miserable pukes that passed the bill stop off at Starbucks and get their $6 cup and $4 pastry every f'n morning on the way to vote against food for a kid.

Fem

 

[Mac1958]

This is one of the many issues on which fundamentalist libertarian thinking makes people look just awful.

As a society, we make decisions on who we should help as a group. Children who are poor and undernourished through no fault of their own would be an example.

So we help. Even if the help isn't perfectly efficient. Even if systems don't always work the way they should. We just do it.

One of the many nasty symptoms of commitment to an ideology is an intellectual paralysis that robs the afflicted of a connection with fundamental human nature.
.

It's the attitude of "we just help no questions asked" is how so many came to easily abuse these programs. Then when the discussion comes up, it's always the dichotomy between those who are against the abusers and those who are for helping the real poor.

Most of the states that cut down their food stamp role did so with people who didn't even have children. In states like Maine, they created requirements that made most people drop out of the program and not one child harmed.

So this joker brings up children when it's likely that states who see a reduction in their grants will not even include children. It's just a way to tug at the hearts of Americans so they get their way.

That's one of the problems with the ends of the spectrum - we just knee-jerk to or against virtually every issue, not listening to, considering, or giving an inch to the other side.

We should be better than this, don't you think? Who is the first to be the adult in the room?
.

Here is the problem:

We on the right are all for helping out the truly needy. But I stress the word "truly." We would like to see people get off of welfare instead of on.

On the left, the more government dependents, the better; the more likely Democrat voters. So they have no interest in getting people off of these programs. When they get in power, let anybody who wants to get on these programs get on them.

So when we talk about the so-called poor, we are talking about a mixture of people who need assistance and people who are on assistance because they got on so easily and really don't need it.

The solution to the problem of course would be if we only put the truly need on them, but Democrats would never go for that. It works against their political goals.

When someone is an adult and able to fend for themselves, that's a perfectly reasonable conversation to have.

But when we're talking about a kid, a child who has absolutely zero (0) control over their situation (past or present), that's something entirely different.

So when a libertarian/conservative standard is applied to them, it shows little fundamental humanity.

Will your political opponents jump on that? Of course. But in that case, it's perfectly understandable.
.

 

[Meathead]

When I was growing up it was school bullies that went after kids’ lunch money, it wasn’t the Congress. This is shameful.

Full employment and low-income kids are too fat anyway.

 

[Rosy]

When I was growing up it was school bullies that went after kids’ lunch money, it wasn’t the Congress. This is shameful.

Farm subsidies do not feed poor children. You are delusional

In fact Trump is ending subsidies that pay farmers not to grow food

got that kiddy

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is one of the many issues on which fundamentalist libertarian thinking makes people look just awful.

As a society, we make decisions on who we should help as a group. Children who are poor and undernourished through no fault of their own would be an example.

So we help. Even if the help isn't perfectly efficient. Even if systems don't always work the way they should. We just do it.

One of the many nasty symptoms of commitment to an ideology is an intellectual paralysis that robs the afflicted of a connection with fundamental human nature.
.

It's the attitude of "we just help no questions asked" is how so many came to easily abuse these programs. Then when the discussion comes up, it's always the dichotomy between those who are against the abusers and those who are for helping the real poor.

Most of the states that cut down their food stamp role did so with people who didn't even have children. In states like Maine, they created requirements that made most people drop out of the program and not one child harmed.

So this joker brings up children when it's likely that states who see a reduction in their grants will not even include children. It's just a way to tug at the hearts of Americans so they get their way.

That's one of the problems with the ends of the spectrum - we just knee-jerk to or against virtually every issue, not listening to, considering, or giving an inch to the other side.

We should be better than this, don't you think? Who is the first to be the adult in the room?
.

Here is the problem:

We on the right are all for helping out the truly needy. But I stress the word "truly." We would like to see people get off of welfare instead of on.

On the left, the more government dependents, the better; the more likely Democrat voters. So they have no interest in getting people off of these programs. When they get in power, let anybody who wants to get on these programs get on them.

So when we talk about the so-called poor, we are talking about a mixture of people who need assistance and people who are on assistance because they got on so easily and really don't need it.

The solution to the problem of course would be if we only put the truly need on them, but Democrats would never go for that. It works against their political goals.

When someone is an adult and able to fend for themselves, that's a perfectly reasonable conversation to have.

But when we're talking about a kid, a child who has absolutely zero (0) control over their situation (past or present), that's something entirely different.

So when a libertarian/conservative standard is applied to them, it shows little fundamental humanity.

Will your political opponents jump on that? Of course. But in that case, it's perfectly understandable.
.

The fundamentals of humanity have largely been replaced by greed and partisanship.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Crepitus]

It's the conservative conundrum on children:

Abortion is murder, but once they are born let the little bastards starve.

 

[PredFan]

When I was growing up it was school bullies that went after kids’ lunch money, it wasn’t the Congress. This is shameful.

Your definition of disaster is different from most people.

 

[Siete]

When I was growing up it was school bullies that went after kids’ lunch money, it wasn’t the Congress. This is shameful.

Farm subsidies do not feed poor children. You are delusional

In fact Trump is ending subsidies that pay farmers not to grow food

got that kiddy

try and pretend the farm bill is not a stand alone bill ..

the food program in the bill also effects low-income working families, children, seniors, people with disabilities and veterans.

got that kiddy

 

[Crepitus]

When I was growing up it was school bullies that went after kids’ lunch money, it wasn’t the Congress. This is shameful.

Farm subsidies do not feed poor children. You are delusional

In fact Trump is ending subsidies that pay farmers not to grow food

got that kiddy

Hey genius, SNAP is part of the farm bill as are other food assistance programs both foreign and domestic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's the conservative conundrum on children:

Abortion is murder, but once they are born let the little bastards starve.

Republicans don't starve anybody--irresponsible parents do.