Posted on 12/04/2012 5:02:27 AM PST by from occupied ga
I thought we had a rampant child obesity problem that required gubmint lunch inspectors and “let’s move”.
are the children starving or fat and lazy? which is it?
It is brilliant! I love it. Make it available to *anyone* (limited to per capita) to eliminate processing costs. No one starves, and no more food stamps or other government programs for food. Make it available in 10 and 25 lb bags, with one bag per person maximum per week.
Little point to that restriction -- just more paperwork. Sure, some people will hoard and stockpile, especially at first, but eventually those stocks will fill up and people will just take what they need.
I'd certainly recommend keeping a few extra bags as part of a disaster kit.
In the old Soviet Union, they had cheap bread subsidized bread... and a scarcity of it, because farmers would buy all they could to feed their hogs, which they then sold on the limited free market or bartered with.
These kibbles would be great pig food. I agree that paperwork is a real problem. Tie the kibbles to some kind of photo I.D., and with computers, it should be easy to see who is gaming the system.
BTW IF ANYONE WANTS TO ZING THIS POMPOUS LYING SOS, I BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN ADD COMMENTS TO EITHER HIS LINKDIN OR FACEBOOK PAGES
I don't feel that it's worth the effort, but feel free.
Absolutely correct. Many have commented on how easy it is to meet these generous limits. Give out free stuff, and tell people that it is a *right* and not charity, and they demand more and more.
Put a garden salad in front of them and you’ll have your answer.
You really can’t have a serious country and let children go hungry,....Surely, ye jest. What the hell are the schools for? Free breakfast, free lunch. The schools need the revenue ya know.
One would almost think that libertarian ideas are present rather than the "compasionate conservatism" that has been stinking up this forum from time to time.
I picked a lot of peas, beans, and berries. Pulled a LOT of weeds, too. Never dawned on me as kid that my family did it to stretch their paycheck, it was just what we (and most other local families) did.
But then again, I didn't grow up "entitled". Mom and Dad taught me to work for a living.
No Big Mac, no peace.
I picked a lot of peas, beans, and berries. Pulled a LOT of weeds, too. Never dawned on me as kid that my family did it to stretch their paycheck, it was just what we (and most other local families) did.
But then again, I didn't grow up "entitled". Mom and Dad taught me to work for a living.
Just the term “Food Justice” tells me that this means we should take things away from some people and give it to others.
“_____ justice” these days is always about the greed of bureaucrats and lazy people to take from producers.
Yep. He apparently doesn’t know what the word “supplemental” means
Well that's what government is all about. Taking from those who have (because they work) and give to those who don't have (because they don't work) in the name of "justice" and "fairness." Somehow is is considered fair to sit around on your dead ass all day and use the government to rob those who actually drag themselves off to a job for 10 or so hours a day. I wonder what the founding fathers would have to say about this. I always thought that screwing out illegitimate chillin was a poor career choice, though it appears to be a profitable one. But that's just my old fashioned work ethic.
When rats devour your food you kill them. I'm having a hard time distinguishing the furry kind of rats from the kind that vote for 0bama if you go only by behavior.
I agree with you. We are not a nation if we let our fellow citizens die of starvation for “mine! Mine! Mine!” We pay taxes that all may share in national defense, police protection (insofar as they can), infrastructure, etc.; a little assurance of a safety net is warranted too, as even charitable churches miss a few. That said, that assistance must be minimal to encourage people to stand up and fend for themselves: food provided must be bare essentials demanding some effort of preparation by the recipient. Raw/frozen vegetables, beans/rice/flour, mundane meats, eggs, bulk cheese or peanut butter - all quantities small enough to discourage resale or waste, all mundane enough few will want to stay on it (though it be little less than my own shopping list).
The odd problem at this point is: the war on poverty has been WON. Between practical prohibition of viable living below the official poverty line, and the confiscation of funds to pay off those on the wrong side of it, there is no real poverty. Alas, those who depend on a “war on poverty” must perpetuate it, defining up what they oppose and attacking as unacceptable that which is tantamount to luxury.
A nation cannot survive if it lets its poor die in the streets.
Our problem is facilitating our poor to die of morbid obesity.
bump
The term “starving” has been legally redefined to include “fat and lazy”, much as (I kid you not) NY has redefined “firearm” to _exclude_ “rifle”.
They are both starving and fat, sometimes the very same kids. That is, defining “starving” as a politically convenient motivator for wealth redistribution. Not anything to do with actual hunger, as these would be rich kids in genuinely “food insecure” countries.
If I know government, somehow fat kids will get fatter and we’ll end up with more starvation.
Why do they choose $30? If you go the the New Jersey “Helps” web site, you can find that a person with no income and no housing expenses is eligible for a maximum of $200 per month or $50 per week. Why are they purposefully low-balling the number?
On the other hand, when they scrape by on $30 (or go over by just a dollar or two), then can we jump to the conclusion that the maximum benefit is too high and can be cut?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.