Department of Government Efficiency - DOGE

#451
#451
jwells said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous. That was just a lot of words to make the circular logic that big gov't is good, so there's no benefit of shrinking it when we can.

The end of the day, I'll stand on the premise that volunteerism is better than socialism. It's better to allow the one who worked for their money to keep their money and spend it as they please. And pragmatically, you will get better outcomes from those in the community, and from those who WANT to do it, than you will get from gov't lackies in Washington who don't know the affected, and who didn't work to earn the money being spent.

And it doesn't remove the premise of representative democracy. For the record, we are a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. That constitution is founded on individual rights. We had a civil war based on the concept of personal, inaliable rights, and the individual having a right to the product of their own work.

"Why even have government?" That's a great question. I would say "To provide safety, protect individual rights, and perform the civic functions that the people can't/won't perform." The government should be JUST large enough to do that. If and when it steps in to enforce itself where the people can and would otherwise do it, and levy enforced taxes to do so, it teeters on tyranny.

The need for limited taxation in no way argues for a big government for the sake of big government and unlimited enforced taxation. That's a glaring excluded middle fallacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1
#452
#452
utvolpj said:
But your statement didn't offer any exceptions. I think the numbers would surprise you given the current conditions

I'll just say one of the very last things I'd ever target is little kids getting being fed. That's a losing proposition
Click to expand...
Of course I don't think little kids should go hungry. But I would still like to see those numbers.

As to the parents. There are ways to 'pay' without 'paying'.... unless you just want a handout. But dirtbags gonna dirtbag I guess.
 
#453
#453
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...
Well, apparently their parents don't give a **** about them, so maybe it isn't about control, but about doing the right thing. Maybe they could then be offered up for adoption to a family that would love them and feed them. But the government has to take a ginormous cut of that and the lawyers rape the would be parents with exorbitant fees so that it is financially unfeasible for them. How about cutting thru that pile of red tape?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1, whodeycin85 and Orange_Crush
#454
#454
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...
Throw the parents in jail, and take away the kids. Might not be efficient, but learning will occur one way or another.
 
#455
#455
jwells said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes, children were fed before government intervention (food stamps was started because there was too much food available, not too little). Children are still fed. There’s few cases annually of actual child starvation and when it does occur it’s not because of “poverty”. It’s neglect and almost always drug related. If children aren’t eating at home your good intentions aren’t solving the problem. You’re merely throwing a bandaid at it until bigger issues arise (like the child actually starving to death over a school vacation). Rather than identifying the neglected children.

Obviously we can keep our people fed, that’s obesity not starvation is a serious concern in this country. We don’t need redundant government programs to do that, we already have food stamps. You don’t have to go to the food bank, once again, we already have food stamps.

And yes, you can obviously take kids for neglect. And should. What’re you talking about when you claim it can’t be done?
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85, JustFunnN'Orange, SpaceCoastVol and 1 other person
#457
#457
jwells said:
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.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the difference between what you are denigrating then advocating as a solution is how the money for 'help' is given. In your first scenario, "the government" takes money at the point of a gun. In the other one offered, "generosity" it is freely given. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with people who love government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and Orange_Crush
#459
#459
jwells said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why not?
 
#460
#460
Vol8188 said:
yes, children were fed before government intervention (food stamps was started because there was too much food available, not too little). Children are still fed. There’s few cases annually of actual child starvation and when it does occur it’s not because of “poverty”. It’s neglect and almost always drug related. If children aren’t eating at home your good intentions aren’t solving the problem. You’re merely throwing a bandaid at it until bigger issues arise (like the child actually starving to death over a school vacation). Rather than identifying the neglected children.

Obviously we can keep our people fed, that’s obesity not starvation is a serious concern in this country. We don’t need redundant government programs to do that, we already have food stamps. You don’t have to go to the food bank, once again, we already have food stamps.

And yes, you can obviously take kids for neglect. And should. What’re you talking about when you claim it can’t be done?
Click to expand...
Man, I can't argue with someone who just thinks kids weren't coming to and leaving school hungry only to go home to little to no food.
www.nokidhungry.org

Child Hunger in America Statistics & Facts | No Kid Hungry

Child hunger in America statistics unveil a significant concern. More than 13 million children in the United States live in “food insecure” homes, according to recent research from the USDA. Learn how No Kid Hungry is solving the issue of child hunger.
www.nokidhungry.org www.nokidhungry.org
 
#462
#462
jwells said:
Because they don't have more money?
Click to expand...
If you get the ****ing government out of people's wallet, you would be astounded at how much freely given money would flow. But your beloved government has to take a cut of everything.

And not only that, charities are vastly more efficient than the government. It's not even in the same galaxy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1, jaybird_1981, Vol since 77 and 2 others
#463
#463
SpaceCoastVol said:
You do realize that the difference between what you are denigrating then advocating as a solution is how the money for 'help' is given. In your first scenario, "the government" takes money at the point of a gun. In the other one offered, "generosity" it is freely given. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with people who love government.
Click to expand...
^^^ That right there. ^^^

I'll add that they take the money at the point of a gun, waste it, and chronically fail audits with an inability to account for it.

If one wants the biggest bang for the childrenz' buck, beg someone besides the government to do it, and celebrate when they do!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1 and SpaceCoastVol
#464
#464
SpaceCoastVol said:
If you get the ****ing government out of people's wallet, you would be astounded at how much freely given money would flow. But your beloved government has to take a cut of everything.
Click to expand...
"beloved government" lol.

It's not the place of charity to fulfill basic needs. We can provide for our people.
I'm not buying for one moment the idea that people, given a little more tax money back in their pockets, would just choose to spend that feeding other people's kids. Nah.
 
#465
#465
jwells said:
"beloved government" lol.

It's not the place of charity to fulfill basic needs. We can provide for our people.
I'm not buying for one moment the idea that people, given a little more tax money back in their pockets, would just choose to spend that feeding other people's kids. Nah.
Click to expand...
It isn't the place of government either Chief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1, Ritzwatch, Vol423 and 1 other person
#467
#467
jwells said:
Promote the general welfare. It's a basic tenet of US government.

The taxation is theft schtick is realllll good 'til people are up whining FEMA isn't giving them enough money.
Click to expand...
What does "promote the general welfare" mean to you? The line I am reading you walking is very close to socialism.

Tell me how I am wrong.

And taxation IS theft when it is only taken from some, and when it punishes success BY taking more as a percentage of your earnings, and then given to those that have contributed nothing.... just because.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh and Tnslim1
#468
#468
jwells said:
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.
Click to expand...
They would literally have more money if the government wasn't taking it. More of that money would get to the needs if the government wasn't wasting and losing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#469
#469
jwells said:
"beloved government" lol.

It's not the place of charity to fulfill basic needs. We can provide for our people.
I'm not buying for one moment the idea that people, given a little more tax money back in their pockets, would just choose to spend that feeding other people's kids. Nah.
Click to expand...
Charity IS the people fulfilling basic needs.

As for the bolded, I think you're projecting. Every church I've ever attended has fed people in the community, including their kids. Heck, every one of them have had overseas missions where people financially supported people they have nothing in common with, even take time off from work and pay airfare to go build and repair orphanages in third world countries.

And that's without the extra money in their pockets that lower taxes would provide.

Maybe socialists are just stingy, greedy, heartless bastards who want everyone else to help so their contributions can be lessened? I mean, if one doesn't have kindness and generosity in oneself, I guess it makes sense that they would assume everyone else was like them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1 and 82_VOL_83
#470
#470
SpaceCoastVol said:
What does "promote the general welfare" mean to you? The line I am reading you walking is very close to socialism.

Tell me how I am wrong.

And taxation IS theft when it is only taken from some, and when it punishes success BY taking more as a percentage of your earnings, and then given to those that have contributed nothing.... just because.
Click to expand...
Imagine arguing that feeding kids is government waste because they "contributed nothing."

It's not "just because", it's so they can freaking learn.
 
#474
#474
jwells said:
Man, I can't argue with someone who just thinks kids weren't coming to and leaving school hungry only to go home to little to no food.
www.nokidhungry.org

Child Hunger in America Statistics & Facts | No Kid Hungry

Child hunger in America statistics unveil a significant concern. More than 13 million children in the United States live in “food insecure” homes, according to recent research from the USDA. Learn how No Kid Hungry is solving the issue of child hunger.
www.nokidhungry.org www.nokidhungry.org
Click to expand...

Not sure what your link proved, other than the fact that school lunches aren’t fixing the problem. If you actually follow the links back in time, it seems to show that “food insecurity” as measured by the amazingly accurate scientific method known as a “survey” has only gotten worse over the past 20+ years.

Despite the expansion of school lunch programs.

Even more interestingly is that the entire survey is a joke. What you’re tryin to claim represents “hungry kids” are families who responded that they felt they couldn’t always afford “balanced meals”. So the kid may have had their fill of Chef Boyardee but because mom felt she couldn’t afford a salad too, you’re now going to lie and proclaim that’s a “hungry child”?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top