Obama announces that the **GOP** will 'cripple' America

[Dr.Who]

There are too many children who go to bed hungry. . . they may not be physically starving, but their body and their brain doesn't get the proper nutrition that children need for a healthy development. And it even affect their ability to focus in school, and their all attitude toward life.

You originally said that there is no excuse not to feed starving people. Are you now saying there is no excuse not to feed hungry people? (seriously, I want you to answer that question) How can they be both hungry and obese at the same time? Could it be that they are on a much needed diet?

Since you changed your statement from "starving" to "hungry" does that mean you accept that there are no starving people? If so then why did you bring it up in the first place? Was that hyperbole or was it deception or were you misinformed? Should I have typed after your statement about starving people the words I have so often typed after so many of your posts: "that is factually wrong."

 

[Dr.Who]

got to love the Republicans (some)...there problem with the poor...is that they are not poor enough for there taste it seems

I see nothing wrong with not wanting to provide food to people who are obese in a manner that is in contradiction to the intent of our constitution.

I also see nothing wrong with anyone at all providing tons of food to anyone at all as long as they use their own dime. I personally donate regularly to my local food pantry full well knowing that none of the people who go there are starving. As far as I can tell all of them drive up to the food pantry in their cars and get food because the economy is hard and they have to make the choice between less food and the mortgage. I don't mind helping them with what amounts to be mortgage assistance. But I would have a big big problem with the fed gov helping people with mortgage assistance.

 

[dogtowner]

It's really pretty simple: it costs a lot more to eat a healthy diet than to eat a filling but fattening diet.

apparently not

 

[Alias]

Don't you ever wonder why obesity is more prevalent in low income families?

It's really pretty simple: it costs a lot more to eat a healthy diet than to eat a filling but fattening diet. When a mother has but a few dollars to prepare a meal for 3 hungry children, she will choose to satisfy their hunger, do you think she may buy one pound of ground beef that contains 40% fat at $2.00 a pound, or a pound of 97% fat free ground beef at $5.00 a pound?

There are too many children who go to bed hungry. . . they may not be physically starving, but their body and their brain doesn't get the proper nutrition that children need for a healthy development. And it even affect their ability to focus in school, and their all attitude toward life.

Fox News is about as reliable as Rush Limbaugh. . .so I put no credence in any of their spin! And I'm sure you will equally deny this report:

I've heard the same argument for years and it's BS. If children are not getting a good diet then it's the parent's fault. That's why schools in the poor neighborhoos are subsidized by taxpayers, to make sure the kids get a balanced meal. Again, the children in America are fed better than anywhere in the world. This is nothing more than to keep people dependent on govt to keep the flow of cash from taxpayers to govt union workers and then to democrat politicians to keep them in power. One big con game.

Fox news in ONE source of information among many. I believe in getting my information from many sources. To restrict yourself is to close your mind. You claim to be "Openmind". It's one thing to say it, it's quite another to actually do it.

 

[Dr.Who]

apparently not

True.

I had a person who worked for me at slightly above minimum wage. Every single day she would show up to work with a bag of fast food from Sonic at a cost of 5 or 6 dollars. Over the course of a 230 day work year that is a lot of money.

That was a good link. But do you think the bread had poo in it?

 

[dogtowner]

True.

I had a person who worked for me at slightly above minimum wage. Every single day she would show up to work with a bag of fast food from Sonic at a cost of 5 or 6 dollars. Over the course of a 230 day work year that is a lot of money.

That was a good link. But do you think the bread had poo in it?

Didn't bother reading far enough to find out what you're referring to.

Also Jamie Oliver the English celebrity chef is on a mission to put this meme to rest.

 

[Openmind]

So based on your notions of decency and empathy there is no limit on why money can be taken from wealthier people in order to feed starving people. I.e. the constitution cannot be a reason not to take their money. on the other hand if the constitution could be a reason not to take their money then you would see at least one acceptable excuse.

If that correctly sums up your view then not only do you not believe the constitution forbids redistribution but you do not even care if it does or does not. And the reason you believe this is your own sense of decency and empathy.

Apparently in your book, the Consitution doesn't allow redistribution FROM THE WEALTHY TO THE POOR, but has no problem with redistribution from the poor to the wealthy?

Because that's exactly what has been happening in the last 10 years!

 

[Alias]

Apparently in your book, the Consitution doesn't allow redistribution FROM THE WEALTHY TO THE POOR, but has no problem with redistribution from the poor to the wealthy?

Because that's exactly what has been happening in the last 10 years!

What's been happening if not creating oppportunity for everyone. We have a President who is sending jobs to china and using taxpayer money to pay off his cronies in the solar panel industry to pay back campaign contributions.

That's the problem. Corruption in govt.

 

[Dr.Who]

Apparently in your book, the Consitution doesn't allow redistribution FROM THE WEALTHY TO THE POOR, but has no problem with redistribution from the poor to the wealthy?

Because that's exactly what has been happening in the last 10 years!

That is not allowed either. I have said repeatedly that the gov needs to apply the rule of law to all equally - that would necessarily mean that they cannot give money to anyone at all with favoritism.

I am on record in various ways opposing the money that makes its way through various inappropriate means into the hands of the wealthy or the corporations or the poor or whatever other special group one might mention. I am opposed to corporate welfare, farm subsidies, other subsidies, all the bailouts, gov welfare, social security, etc.

Now, I might assume that you are opposed to the same things I am but I have this suspicion that you are only opposed to the money that moves to the rich and I am suspicious that when one person makes a mutually beneficial trade with another that if the richer of the two ends up with any more money in his pocket at the end that you just might oppose that. I have a suspicion that if congress is not involved in any way, if no law is broken, but if a rich person makes money that you see evil and greed in that no matter now lawful and moral his actions are.

 

[dogtowner]

Apparently in your book, the Consitution doesn't allow redistribution FROM THE WEALTHY TO THE POOR, but has no problem with redistribution from the poor to the wealthy?

Because that's exactly what has been happening in the last 10 years!

The poor don't pay taxes so your accusation is false.

 

[Openmind]

That is not allowed either. I have said repeatedly that the gov needs to apply the rule of law to all equally - that would necessarily mean that they cannot give money to anyone at all with favoritism.

I am on record in various ways opposing the money that makes its way through various inappropriate means into the hands of the wealthy or the corporations or the poor or whatever other special group one might mention. I am opposed to corporate welfare, farm subsidies, other subsidies, all the bailouts, gov welfare, social security, etc.

Now, I might assume that you are opposed to the same things I am but I have this suspicion that you are only opposed to the money that moves to the rich and I am suspicious that when one person makes a mutually beneficial trade with another that if the richer of the two ends up with any more money in his pocket at the end that you just might oppose that. I have a suspicion that if congress is not involved in any way, if no law is broken, but if a rich person makes money that you see evil and greed in that no matter now lawful and moral his actions are.

The problem is that "equal opportunity" is a myth!
I was just discussing schooling with a couple of women today, one was a teacher, the other is a grand mother who is raising her grand son while the father is in Afghanistan.

The grandmother was telling me how amazed she was at the difference in helping her grand kid through middle school, and having helped her children through middle school, 30 years ago.

The main difference is that it is basically IMPOSSIBLE for kids to do their homework efficiently and thoroughly without having access to a computer . . .not just in school, but after school.
Yet, how many people on welfare, or how many single parent families can afford to purchase a computer to keep up with their child's homework, and to give their child the SAME advantage than middle class or upper middle class have?

This may seem like a "detail" to you. . .but it is a HUGE inequality that begins at an early age. . .and probably cannot be compensated later.

Just one small exemple.

 

[dogtowner]

The problem is that "equal opportunity" is a myth!
I was just discussing schooling with a couple of women today, one was a teacher, the other is a grand mother who is raising her grand son while the father is in Afghanistan.

The grandmother was telling me how amazed she was at the difference in helping her grand kid through middle school, and having helped her children through middle school, 30 years ago.

The main difference is that it is basically IMPOSSIBLE for kids to do their homework efficiently and thoroughly without having access to a computer . . .not just in school, but after school.
Yet, how many people on welfare, or how many single parent families can afford to purchase a computer to keep up with their child's homework, and to give their child the SAME advantage than middle class or upper middle class have?

This may seem like a "detail" to you. . .but it is a HUGE inequality that begins at an early age. . .and probably cannot be compensated later.

Just one small exemple.

About half and growing fast it seems. they are cheap and getting cheaper.

Nearly half (48%) of Americans under age 60 who make less than $30,000 now have a computer at home, and 31% have access to the Internet at home.

 

[Dr.Who]

The problem is that "equal opportunity" is a myth!
I was just discussing schooling with a couple of women today, one was a teacher, the other is a grand mother who is raising her grand son while the father is in Afghanistan.

The grandmother was telling me how amazed she was at the difference in helping her grand kid through middle school, and having helped her children through middle school, 30 years ago.

The main difference is that it is basically IMPOSSIBLE for kids to do their homework efficiently and thoroughly without having access to a computer . . .not just in school, but after school.
Yet, how many people on welfare, or how many single parent families can afford to purchase a computer to keep up with their child's homework, and to give their child the SAME advantage than middle class or upper middle class have?

This may seem like a "detail" to you. . .but it is a HUGE inequality that begins at an early age. . .and probably cannot be compensated later.

Just one small exemple.

If you are claiming that the public education system is grossly unequal then you would be totally correct. That tells us that the public education system is unequal but it in no way tells us that equal opportunity is impossible or not a worthy goal - it is in fact the only worthy goal and the only one that our constitution allows.

It is time to make our public schools provide equal opportunities for everyone who is enrolled to get a decent education. It is not time to redistribute wealth which is supposed to be the result, in part, of that good education.

If you really want to help poor people the best thing you could do would be to advocate for a school system that actually turns out graduates that can read and write and talk.

 

[Dr.Who]

About half and growing fast it seems. they are cheap and getting cheaper.

Much of the other half have two TV sets, new nikes, and gold jewelry. maybe they should have bought computers.

There is a small percentage of "the poor" who really are poor and cannot afford necessities on their own. Of course, once they take advantage of cash assistance, insurance assistance, rent assistance, food assistance and EIC then they can afford to buy the things they need - like computers if they make that good choice.

I am glad that the people who are really poor can access assistance but we do need to restructure that assistance from the ground up.

 

[Dr.Who]

The main difference is that it is basically IMPOSSIBLE for kids to do their homework efficiently and thoroughly without having access to a computer . . .not just in school, but after school..

Btw, I have kids and so far neither one of them has ever done homework on a computer. Maybe it is only impossible for kids in high school to not have a computer? But of course by the time they are old enough to be in high school they can go to the library or stay after school to use the computers there.

I have a computer that is about 6 years old that I don't use at all. It would be just fine for writing papers or surfing the web. Did you know that the Salvation Army won't even take it. I guess they don't have much of a need for computers.