Senator Sanders and Rep. Omar introduce Universal School meals bill

[TECSHARE]

Hamilton and Madison could not even agree on the general welfare part of... "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

The supreme court has ruled that the government is within their constitutional right to pay for "social" type programs. Justice Owen Roberts (republican) reaffirmed that and simplified it by saying "Put simply, Congress may tax and spend."

So once again, you have some fantasy of the country you think you live in that is not held up by reality. Continue talking out your ass if you like though.

Save the faux pontification. We both know you don't have any idea what you are rambling about as usual. Maybe you can tell me The Constitution is not a legal document and save yourself the trouble and just get right to making yourself look like an ass with your ignorance of the legal system.

[Viper1]

Hamilton and Madison could not even agree on the general welfare part of... "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

The supreme court has ruled that the government is within their constitutional right to pay for "social" type programs. Justice Owen Roberts (republican) reaffirmed that and simplified it by saying "Put simply, Congress may tax and spend."

So once again, you have some fantasy of the country you think you live in that is not held up by reality. Continue talking out your ass if you like though.

Save the faux pontification. We both know you don't have any idea what you are rambling about as usual. Maybe you can tell me The Constitution is not a legal document and save yourself the trouble and just get right to making yourself look like an ass with your ignorance of the legal system.

That's right... Don't even attempt to refute but instead continue with personal attacks cause that's all you have. If the founding fathers couldn't even agree on the extent of the spending power of the congress then there's no way you can state your opinion as "fact". Lets also just ignore that the supreme court has ruled that it's constitutional. I sometimes wonder what fantasy world you live in.

By the way. The court ruled that the WH and your arguments in the other matter were bullshit. And yes, I'm well aware it will probably be appealed but I doubt the end result will be different, assuming the arguments don't change in some way that creates a "loophole" that so many of the other court cases end up getting dismissed on.

[TheCoinGrabber]

This was something I did not expect would be necessary in America.  The thing with free meals for all kids is that families with more kids are taking more out of the "pot" so to speak. Of course the proponents can argue that that's not the case since everyone gets fed.

I'd rather have the kids be given meals on credit that parents would have to pay for later. They don't have money nor a job? Well maybe they can do community service to pay for it. They paid off their kids meal and society got something out of them. Of course this should be only for those who really can't feed their kids. Don't have them if you can't even feed them.

[coins4commies]

I'd rather have the kids be given meals on credit that parents would have to pay for later. They don't have money nor a job? Well maybe they can do community service to pay for it. They paid off their kids meal and society got something out of them. Of course this should be only for those who really can't feed their kids. Don't have them if you can't even feed them.

Its funny you say that because a federal jobs for all program is also a major part of Bernie's platform.

[TheCoinGrabber]

I'd rather have the kids be given meals on credit that parents would have to pay for later. They don't have money nor a job? Well maybe they can do community service to pay for it. They paid off their kids meal and society got something out of them. Of course this should be only for those who really can't feed their kids. Don't have them if you can't even feed them.

Its funny you say that because a federal jobs for all program is also a major part of Bernie's platform.

Had to look that up when you mentioned it. I don't really believe they'll manage to give everyone a $15/h job and even if they do, it'll be a big drain on the government. The main reason governments give private businesses incentives is that they provide jobs the government can't.

[Viper1]

I don't really believe they'll manage to give everyone a $15/h job and even if they do

Of course they will. They'll just be crappy 20-25 hour/week job but hell, they get to say they did it and say the unemployment rate went down cause they use the misleading U-3 rate instead of the U-6 one. Target has already shown what will happen. They cut people hours to balance the books. But what does it matter. It's all about votes and as long as it's a great campaign slogan the sheep will vote for them.

[TheCoinGrabber]

I don't really believe they'll manage to give everyone a $15/h job and even if they do

Of course they will. They'll just be crappy 20-25 hour/week job but hell, they get to say they did it and say the unemployment rate went down cause they use the misleading U-3 rate instead of the U-6 one. Target has already shown what will happen. They cut people hours to balance the books. But what does it matter. It's all about votes and as long as it's a great campaign slogan the sheep will vote for them.

Ahahaha! Reminds me of what a previous administration did in my country. They basically got people to sweep the streets. Not that I'm not in favor of putting able-bodied people to work, just don't call that a "job". It was obviously not even minimum wage.

Businesses definitely would cut hours, I've also seen this and we don't even have this "universal" employment yet. Inflation went higher and companies simply asked their employees to not go to work. Most hit are those who are not even "regular" yet.

[franky1]

This should be a no-brainer.  Anyone who knows about education, knows that a hungry mind cannot learn. Children have no ability to provide for themselves and need food and education if they will ever have a chance to do so.  

i know kids love their sugary, processed, well branded crap thats made.. but schools should offer a free food bill of proper healthy unprocessed, non additive food.. and then charge for the 'branded/processed fast food' as a luxury item/treat

i say this because i can see pepsi and pizzahut rubbing thier hands together at billion $$ grants to manage school kitchens offering just their unhealthy crap if a stipulation about what should be offered for free is not included

(p.s: i love pizza but atleast know what its doing to my body)

[BADecker]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) jointly introduced on Tuesday the Universal School Meals Program Act, a bill that would help provide three free meals per day for all U.S. school children.

 

Now they are trying to send food off-planet, when they don't even know if there is life out there.

 

[franky1]

No. Just no. Implement policies that make it so that the children's parents can bloody well feed their children properly.

Dont breed them if you cant feed them.  Feeding a child is the parent's responsibility.

what if.. what if
parents have a child. the parents work and feel their job is secure..... but by the time the kid is born and then later reaches the age of say 4. the parents lose their job or a parent loses their lives affecting the families income.

lets just pretend its just the lose the job scenario.
are governments to then still refuse to feed the kids. and have the kids on a waiting list to be assessed and eventually when assessed as having parents that cant afford to feed the family. have the kids removed from the home and treated as criminal child abusers.. purely for losing their job
or
the $2 a meal that would have paid for the kids food, could then go towards job searching where the parent can concentrate on trying to better the families life knowing the kids are healthy

oh and before bringing up the whole 'tax payer' crap
no where no time no place will you ever see a government void peoples responsibility to pay taxes. there will never be a tax free country.
so its better that tax money went towards peoples health and not corporations CEO wealth.
id rather see a kid got fed and not some scumbag office worker buy a lambo because he is some pen pushing government employee that does nothing but watch porn on his office computer from 9-5

yep you may say you hate a socialist concept of tax. but your wrong. tax is a thing of all concepts including capitalist.. the thing you probably would hate/do hate if you sat and deeply thought about it. is you hate the capitalist use of the tax funds for corporate benefit not social benefit

or are you on of them type of people that love pepsi more than another human

[PopoJeff]

No. Just no. Implement policies that make it so that the children's parents can bloody well feed their children properly.

Dont breed them if you cant feed them.  Feeding a child is the parent's responsibility.

what if.. what if
parents have a child. the parents work and feel their job is secure..... but by the time the kid is born and then later reaches the age of say 4. the parents lose their job or a parent loses their lives affecting the families income.

lets just pretend its just the lose the job scenario.
are governments to then still refuse to feed the kids. and have the kids on a waiting list to be assessed and eventually when assessed as having parents that cant afford to feed the family. have the kids removed from the home and treated as criminal child abusers.. purely for losing their job
or
the $2 a meal that would have paid for the kids food, could then go towards job searching where the parent can concentrate on trying to better the families life knowing the kids are healthy

oh and before bringing up the whole 'tax payer' crap
no where no time no place will you ever see a government void peoples responsibility to pay taxes. there will never be a tax free country.
so its better that tax money went towards peoples health and not corporations CEO wealth.
id rather see a kid got fed and not some scumbag office worker buy a lambo because he is some pen pushing government employee that does nothing but watch porn on his office computer from 9-5

yep you may say you hate a socialist concept of tax. but your wrong. tax is a thing of all concepts including capitalist.. the thing you probably would hate/do hate if you sat and deeply thought about it. is you hate the capitalist use of the tax funds for corporate benefit not social benefit

or are you on of them type of people that love pepsi more than another human

Still, NO.   Your kid is not my problem.  If the school wants to discount that poor kids meal by 50%, sure, let the parent apply for the discounted meal.
    But what happens when you make the families dependent on the schools for feeding the kid?  Now the school has to be open during summer vacation to feed kids? Increased wages and expenses for opening another 25% of the time?
    What happens when everyone becomes dependent on the government taking care of them? Why would anyone bother to better themselves, better their job, better their situation...When you can just sit around and collect handouts?
   You slowly make everyone a govt dependent, less people enter the workforce, less workers to pay taxes, raise the tax rate to counter the lower number of taxpayers. Eventually it becomes more beneficial to suck off the govt teat than to work. Tax revenue drops to a level insufficient to support all the handout programs. It all collapses, and we go back to where we were 300 years ago, fending for yourself with little to no govt services

[BADecker]

No. Just no. Implement policies that make it so that the children's parents can bloody well feed their children properly.

Dont breed them if you cant feed them.  Feeding a child is the parent's responsibility.

what if.. what if
parents have a child. the parents work and feel their job is secure..... but by the time the kid is born and then later reaches the age of say 4. the parents lose their job or a parent loses their lives affecting the families income.

lets just pretend its just the lose the job scenario.
are governments to then still refuse to feed the kids. and have the kids on a waiting list to be assessed and eventually when assessed as having parents that cant afford to feed the family. have the kids removed from the home and treated as criminal child abusers.. purely for losing their job
or
the $2 a meal that would have paid for the kids food, could then go towards job searching where the parent can concentrate on trying to better the families life knowing the kids are healthy

oh and before bringing up the whole 'tax payer' crap
no where no time no place will you ever see a government void peoples responsibility to pay taxes. there will never be a tax free country.
so its better that tax money went towards peoples health and not corporations CEO wealth.
id rather see a kid got fed and not some scumbag office worker buy a lambo because he is some pen pushing government employee that does nothing but watch porn on his office computer from 9-5

yep you may say you hate a socialist concept of tax. but your wrong. tax is a thing of all concepts including capitalist.. the thing you probably would hate/do hate if you sat and deeply thought about it. is you hate the capitalist use of the tax funds for corporate benefit not social benefit

or are you on of them type of people that love pepsi more than another human

Still, NO.   Your kid is not my problem.  If the school wants to discount that poor kids meal by 50%, sure, let the parent apply for the discounted meal.
    But what happens when you make the families dependent on the schools for feeding the kid?  Now the school has to be open during summer vacation to feed kids? Increased wages and expenses for opening another 25% of the time?
    What happens when everyone becomes dependent on the government taking care of them? Why would anyone bother to better themselves, better their job, better their situation...When you can just sit around and collect handouts?
   You slowly make everyone a govt dependent, less people enter the workforce, less workers to pay taxes, raise the tax rate to counter the lower number of taxpayers. Eventually it becomes more beneficial to suck off the govt teat than to work. Tax revenue drops to a level insufficient to support all the handout programs. It all collapses, and we go back to where we were 300 years ago, fending for yourself with little to no govt services

Right! Get rid of taxation. Make people buy what they get.     

[franky1]

Still, NO.   Your kid is not my problem.  If the school wants to discount that poor kids meal by 50%, sure, let the parent apply for the discounted meal.
    But what happens when you make the families dependent on the schools for feeding the kid?  Now the school has to be open during summer vacation to feed kids? Increased wages and expenses for opening another 25% of the time?
    What happens when everyone becomes dependent on the government taking care of them? Why would anyone bother to better themselves, better their job, better their situation...When you can just sit around and collect handouts?
   You slowly make everyone a govt dependent, less people enter the workforce, less workers to pay taxes, raise the tax rate to counter the lower number of taxpayers. Eventually it becomes more beneficial to suck off the govt teat than to work. Tax revenue drops to a level insufficient to support all the handout programs. It all collapses, and we go back to where we were 300 years ago, fending for yourself with little to no govt services

they are not your problem..
i mean are they in your physical kitchen, are you the one cooking the food.. no and no

if you truly think that feeding every american child would cause such a big dent into the treasury budget then you have no idea at all about the tax budget.
ok heres some perspective.
us treasury is $3400b
very very worse case every person in US under 18 getting fed 3 healthy meals a day every day 365
$78b ($2.29 for every $100 tax)

did you know that the government pay banks $10 out of every $100
yep over $340bill just gets handed to banks

so government could feed kids 15 meals a day every day before even touching 'your tax'
if thy just stopped paying banks

but i still hear you saying.. "no just dont feed kids"
but guess what. although the 'spending ' might primarily look like its saving. that $78b does not convert into a tax reimbursmnt shared out. instead that $78b just gets spent on new suits, mansions and lambo's for the elitist pay rises

and trying to presume that helping people in need is something that should be shunned. but then knowing soooo much more money is wasted on corporate affairs. just makes you truly not understand the initial purpose of what governments wer suppose to do.

governments are not suppose to enrich and protect corporation profits.
and you will never have a established government country have a scenario of zero tax..

so truly decide where do you sit. having your taxes look after the people or the elistists/corporations

[PopoJeff]

Instead of complaining about the wealthy folks, who pay in most of the taxes, why don't you strive to be one of the wealthy ?

When it comes to my taxes, I hear all the time... it's only $2... 3... $6.   But that adds up quick.  It never ends.  You guys keep taxing the crap out of me, and I receive such a smaller share of the tax benefits. 

[franky1]

Instead of complaining about the wealthy folks, who pay in most of the taxes, why don't you strive to be one of the wealthy ?

When it comes to my taxes, I hear all the time... it's only $2... 3... $6.   But that adds up quick.  It never ends.  You guys keep taxing the crap out of me, and I receive such a smaller share of the tax benefits.  

and you think that if you let kids start your gonna get to save $2.29 on every $100 of tax
come on.
we all know that wil end up being an extra $2.29 the banks get to syphon out of the treasury

as for your 'tax benfits'
you want the government to not look after the kids..
ok no food, no wefareno healthcare,no state schools

cool $1.13tril not spent on that.
but that wont put $33 of tax as a refund after paying $100 of tax
that extra $33 ends up with the banks

so lets just cut to the chase
imagine you had $100
break it up into smaller amounts and dished out to the different 'tax benefit' categories you wish to see tax pay for

lets see your example of what you prefer the tax budget to be spent on
ill give you an example
$100=
$22.48 social security
$15.47 military
$14.64 medicare
$13.15 health
$11.59 income security/welfare
$8.45 bank payment
$4.50 veterans benefits
$3.05 education
$2.15 transportation
$4.52 other

feel free to take categories out and add new categories, change amounts and such. but just show how you want to s $100 of tax spent, based on who you feel is more worthy or not

[PopoJeff]

Make it $50.

There's my problem.  Some people are paying 10%.  
I'm paying 32%.

And that's just of my income.
Then throw in maybe another 6k of property tax. Add this tax, that tax, etc.  

Politicians keep wanting to add more and more welfare programs costing millions or billions. Never once do they consider MY welfare, or the tax inequality I suffer.

You may pay $2 towards that program, while I pay $6.  


You are already taxing the ever living crap out of the people that make good money, but then complain that they make good money.



This is another unnecessary program.  In the OP it states "1 in 5 children" are hungry or can't afford meals.  That's 20% of the population.  So now we're gonna introduce a bill to feed ALL children, 3 meals per day.  
    So if 80% of the population is being responsible enough to feed their own kids, you are essentially introducing a bill that is 80% wasteful and unneeded.  For every $100 that goes into that program, $80 is wasted.
    We already have school lunch programs for the poor.

[Viper1]

No. Just no. Implement policies that make it so that the children's parents can bloody well feed their children properly.

Dont breed them if you cant feed them.  Feeding a child is the parent's responsibility.

what if.. what if
parents have a child. the parents work and feel their job is secure..... but by the time the kid is born and then later reaches the age of say 4. the parents lose their job or a parent loses their lives affecting the families income.

lets just pretend its just the lose the job scenario.
are governments to then still refuse to feed the kids. and have the kids on a waiting list to be assessed and eventually when assessed as having parents that cant afford to feed the family. have the kids removed from the home and treated as criminal child abusers.. purely for losing their job
or
the $2 a meal that would have paid for the kids food, could then go towards job searching where the parent can concentrate on trying to better the families life knowing the kids are healthy

"provide three free meals per day for all U.S. school children"

They are not talking about providing for those in need, they're talking about government taking over the responsibility of parents to provide for their children. That's not socialism, that's socialist and that's where I draw the line. Once again, they're using children for votes cause they know it's an emotional issue for people in the same way they use it for gun control and the right uses it for abortion. It disgusts me when anyone uses kids as a means to try and sway opinion on an issue. And to be clear, I have no problem providing assistance for those who need it for awhile.

[franky1]

"provide three free meals per day for all U.S. school children"

They are not talking about providing for those in need, they're talking about government taking over the responsibility of parents to provide for their children. That's not socialism, that's socialist and that's where I draw the line. Once again, they're using children for votes cause they know it's an emotional issue for people in the same way they use it for gun control and the right uses it for abortion. It disgusts me when anyone uses kids as a means to try and sway opinion on an issue. And to be clear, I have no problem providing assistance for those who need it for awhile.

im in agreement
my opinion is this though
all under 18's getting 3 meals a day for all 365 days a year is just 2%
yet the money going to banks is more like 8-10%
id personally prefer banks get 0 and then have 6-8% for other things and 2% to make sure no one starves

as for this 2% meal cost. this is not caviar, steak and gourmet food. its simple basic
bowl of cereal or toast...
sandwich and fruit
basic portion of meat and 3 veg

you know real basic but also proper unprocessed nutrition. whereby the kids that want the luxuries of coloured sugar milkshakes and pizza and chocolate bars and potato chip snacks can pay for the 'convenience' foods

what you end up finding is not every child ends up taking the free stuff and instead buys what they can afford but still leaves those that cant afford it well fed

they have actually done studies on many things like offered a community group free footwear. and found that some familes still bought the latest nike footwear and never even took up the free footwear offer. thus saving the budget allowance alloted for footwear

the studies also shown that the savings of those not taking the offer. did not end up as any tax refunds to the community. but then spent on stupid 'admin costs' and corporate deals for other things.. yep viper hoping his tax bracket would go from 32% to 16% if he just allocated spending of $100 to be just $50 wont get him a 16% bracket. instead the funds he did not allocated would self re-allocate themselves to double the budget of the $50 he did allocate

[Viper1]

"provide three free meals per day for all U.S. school children"

They are not talking about providing for those in need, they're talking about government taking over the responsibility of parents to provide for their children. That's not socialism, that's socialist and that's where I draw the line. Once again, they're using children for votes cause they know it's an emotional issue for people in the same way they use it for gun control and the right uses it for abortion. It disgusts me when anyone uses kids as a means to try and sway opinion on an issue. And to be clear, I have no problem providing assistance for those who need it for awhile.

im in agreement
my opinion is this though
all under 18's getting 3 meals a day for all 365 days a year is just 2%
yet the money going to banks is more like 8-10%
id personally prefer banks get 0 and then have 6-8% for other things and 2% to make sure no one starves

For me, this is not something I would be flexible on so all your attempts at justifications just fall on deaf ears. It's crossing the line no matter how I feel about other things. In fact, I feel so strongly about these sorts of issues that, despite despising Trump for years (long before he ran for president), I would either not vote or vote for him (or some other Republican). I would rather the country get even more fucked up than allow it to move towards being blatantly socialist. That's why someone like Bernie or even Warren (assuming she doesn't flop back from stealing all Bernie's stuff) could not win. The dems would lose a lot of the center and moderates.

[franky1]

well we aint gonna live in a zero tax world..
so what would you consider as things to spend funds on

but i do find it funny how people think offering free food = trapping people into some prison.
yea the school may offer a free sandwich but you can still give your kid pizza if you want