500,000 kids could lose lunch due to trump

Southern Chicken said:
The loophole needs to be fixed is the point. People are taking advantage of the loophole. You guys are stupid. Please read the link and research for yourself.
Click to expand...

How many of the kids on free lunch have parent(s) getting food stamps that are supposed to be used to feed them? Redundancy is a big problem.
 
Miss Margot Frank said:
Why do you want to punish children that have irresponsible parents?
Oh wait!The same reason you Nazis have kids in Concentration Camps!
Click to expand...

It's not punishing the children. It's holding their sorry parent(s) accountable for providing for them. Why do you enable and encourage irresponsible parent(s) to be irresponsible?

Wait! You're one of them that refuses to fulfill that responsibility then blames others.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
No one cares about what racists, misogynists, and gay bashing idiots like you think.

We are past that now!

But keep on with your stupid thinking- we just don't care!
Click to expand...

Apparently you do care. You responded because I hit a nerve.

Which is it, boy? Skin color? Gender? Sexual orientation?
 
Flash said:
Because that is not going to happen. Too many make money from such programs and to keep from admitting they are benefiting they use the kids to shame people who are critical.

Some of the school districts in my area had free lunches during the summer and nobody showed up, but they continued the programs, anyway.
Click to expand...

That the Districts run those program poorly and it being the responsibility of the kid's parent(s) to feed their own kids are two different issues. The thing is both could be solved with one move. Stop doing what it's not the responsibility of the school to do, and that's enable, encourage, and allow parent(s) to be irresponsible, and the poor running of programs that no longer exist can't occur.
 
CFM said:
Apparently you do care. You responded because I hit a nerve.

Which is it, boy? Skin color? Gender? Sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

My decision to vote for someone does not have Skin Color, Gender, Religious, Age, or Sexual Orientation requirements. I am not even sure who I am voting for yet.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
My decision to vote for someone does not have Skin Color, Gender, Religious, Age, or Sexual Orientation requirements. I am not even sure who I am voting for yet.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that but we both know you're lying.

That's why I asked about about several of the usual Democrat identity politics causes. While you may not have decided, you already know it will be one of them.
 
CFM said:
That the Districts run those program poorly and it being the responsibility of the kid's parent(s) to feed their own kids are two different issues. The thing is both could be solved with one move. Stop doing what it's not the responsibility of the school to do, and that's enable, encourage, and allow parent(s) to be irresponsible, and the poor running of programs that no longer exist can't occur.
Click to expand...

I share many of your sentiments but because those programs are poorly run that mainly benefit the employees and private businesses supplying services and products. But, that is not going to happen. The social programs in this country will continue to increase and expand. There will be 50 million more over-65 citizens by 2060 and that will mushroom the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs. The president and Congress just agreed to raise the debt ceiling by $320 billion so the expansion continues under both parties despite those claims Republicans are "cutting" social programs. Total spending for domestic programs continues to increase.

Those school districts with lunch programs with no students are not running it poorly, they are getting federal grants and they want that money because it pays employees, administrators, and provides overhead expenses for the district. They get those benefits whether they ever serve a single student. So, it is a poorly run program, but from the district's point of view it is spending money that would otherwise go to some other district.
 
Flash said:
I share many of your sentiments but because those programs are poorly run that mainly benefit the employees and private businesses supplying services and products. But, that is not going to happen. The social programs in this country will continue to increase and expand. There will be 50 million more over-65 citizens by 2060 and that will mushroom the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs. The president and Congress just agreed to raise the debt ceiling by $320 billion so the expansion continues under both parties despite those claims Republicans are "cutting" social programs. Total spending for domestic programs continues to increase.

Those school districts with lunch programs with no students are not running it poorly, they are getting federal grants and they want that money because it pays employees, administrators, and provides overhead expenses for the district. They get those benefits whether they ever serve a single student. So, it is a poorly run program, but from the district's point of view it is spending money that would otherwise go to some other district.
Click to expand...

You equate Social Security and Medicare with Medicaid. Do you know the difference between them?

If the money isn't being used to do what the program is designed to do, they're not spending money, they're wasting money.
 
CFM said:
You equate Social Security and Medicare with Medicaid. Do you know the difference between them?

If the money isn't being used to do what the program is designed to do, they're not spending money, they're wasting money.
Click to expand...

I agree the money is being wasted, but it is not wasted from the point of view of the employees receiving the money.

I understand the difference in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But I used them as an example of programs that will increase as the over 65 population increases. Approximately half the nursing home residents are on Medicaid (and Medicare) and qualified by going to an eldercare lawyer who uses his knowledge of the law to get people qualified who may actually have a large IRA fund or other wealth. So, they are getting government welfare they did not pay for other than in their federal income taxes.

Even Social Security and Medicare provide most seniors more money than they paid in payroll taxes--so it is government "welfare" the recipients did not pay for.

In your previous post you implied if we stopped providing lunches, etc. the irresponsible parents would become responsible. I do not think it would change their behavior. Irresponsible parents in the states with very limited welfare benefits are no more responsible than those in state with more generous benefits.
 
Getin the ring said:
Don't have a lot of choice do you ? :rofl2:

let's see, Bozo or Clairable?

flip a coin I say, it's not like you care about the issues anyway, right?
Click to expand...

Wrong!

You are the one voting for BOZO!

trump-clown-smail-smug.jpg
 
Flash said:
I agree the money is being wasted, but it is not wasted from the point of view of the employees receiving the money.

I understand the difference in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But I used them as an example of programs that will increase as the over 65 population increases. Approximately half the nursing home residents are on Medicaid (and Medicare) and qualified by going to an eldercare lawyer who uses his knowledge of the law to get people qualified who may actually have a large IRA fund or other wealth. So, they are getting government welfare they did not pay for other than in their federal income taxes.

Even Social Security and Medicare provide most seniors more money than they paid in payroll taxes--so it is government "welfare" the recipients did not pay for.

In your previous post you implied if we stopped providing lunches, etc. the irresponsible parents would become responsible. I do not think it would change their behavior. Irresponsible parents in the states with very limited welfare benefits are no more responsible than those in state with more generous benefits.
Click to expand...

Being wasted is based on whether or not it's being used for the intended purpose not on the belief of those receiving it.

Whether SS/Medicare provide more or less than paid in depends on several factors.

Not once did I make such an implication. I don't care whether they become responsible or not as long as the taxpayers that have been forced to feed their damn kids are no longer forced to do so. Whether they remained irresponsible or changed their ways wouldn't be an issue.
 
Flash said:
I share many of your sentiments but because those programs are poorly run that mainly benefit the employees and private businesses supplying services and products. But, that is not going to happen. The social programs in this country will continue to increase and expand. There will be 50 million more over-65 citizens by 2060 and that will mushroom the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs. The president and Congress just agreed to raise the debt ceiling by $320 billion so the expansion continues under both parties despite those claims Republicans are "cutting" social programs. Total spending for domestic programs continues to increase.

Those school districts with lunch programs with no students are not running it poorly, they are getting federal grants and they want that money because it pays employees, administrators, and provides overhead expenses for the district. They get those benefits whether they ever serve a single student. So, it is a poorly run program, but from the district's point of view it is spending money that would otherwise go to some other district.
Click to expand...

Social Security and Medicare are self-solving problems. The boomers are already dying off and in a decade or so that problem will be gone. Social Security is paid for by checks of workers. If it falls short, it cuts back on the checks. When it was written, it made it clear that the fed could not take money from other sources to make up for shortages.
 
Gonzomin said:
Social Security and Medicare are self-solving problems. The boomers are already dying off and in a decade or so that problem will be gone. Social Security is paid for by checks of workers. If it falls short, it cuts back on the checks. When it was written, it made it clear that the fed could not take money from other sources to make up for shortages.
Click to expand...

wow, you really are clueless about even the very basics of almost every subject you choose to opine.

I'd suggest you read something instead of listening to CNBC
 
Gonzomin said:
Social Security and Medicare are self-solving problems. The boomers are already dying off and in a decade or so that problem will be gone. Social Security is paid for by checks of workers. If it falls short, it cuts back on the checks. When it was written, it made it clear that the fed could not take money from other sources to make up for shortages.
Click to expand...

Pay Social Security on all income
 
bhoyal said:
He already makes thinking adults want to "lose their lunch." Now he want to steal from kids. Like a reverse Robin Hood. Steal from the poor and give to the rich.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...lose-free-school-lunch-trump-plan/1863720001/
Click to expand...

Restoring the proper role of government as an entity that protects your rights rather than illegally acting as your welfare state nanny (at other people's expense) is "stealing" from children? What kind of twisted mind-fuck is that? Since when did that money BELONG to those Democrats are exploiting to keep poor and dependent instead of the EARNERS who Democrats stole it from? For the record, Trump also hates puppies and wants to push grannies in front of trains...Since we're making up Kindergarten drama queen smears like two-bit demagogues.

:laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top