Millions could face severe cuts to food stamps

Oneuli said:
That's debatable. From a moral perspective, I take the view that mankind is a shared responsibility. But if you come from an immoral perspective, there's not going to be any convincing you about that, so I won't try. Instead, I'm just arguing pragmatism. Regardless of whether you think it's your responsibility, if you can pay for an ounce of prevention now, by helping out some kids in their formative years, and that'll save you from paying for a pound of prevention down the road, when they're adults, isn't that worth the investment?



I actually do. But I realize that doesn't mean having the field tilted heavily against those who happen to be born into poorer families.



Because you're better off if you stop. That's why you see almost no families churning out huge numbers of kids. The most recent data was for the 2010 census, at which time the average TANF family had 1.8 recipient children, and half the families had only one child, while less than eight percent had more than three. There are rare cases of large welfare families, but most families that need welfare stop having more children, despite the ability to get a little more money for each additional child, because that little bit is a lot less than it costs to care for the additional child. The idea that any sizable portion of welfare recipients are churning out large broods just for the check simply isn't backed up by the hard data. What it is backed up by is right-wing prejudice, which is all some people need to repeat it.
Click to expand...

It's not debatable since it's not your place to determine my morals just like it's not mine to determine yours.

It's easy. Don't pay now and don't pay later. It's not my place to pay now and not my place to pay later.

If you did, you wouldn't expect those that have more than you think they should have be forced to pay for those that refuse to do their parental responsibility.

It's not prejudice to expect those producing the kids to support them. It's called expecting personal responsibility from those that made the choice to produce what they now refuse to support. Those of us that meet our responsibilities are the fucking ATM for those that don't.
 
CFM said:
It's not debatable since it's not your place to determine my morals just like it's not mine to determine yours.
Click to expand...

I'm not determining your morals. I'm observing your lack of them.

It's easy. Don't pay now and don't pay later.
Click to expand...

That's an option -- and it's a terrible option, because it results in growing social dysfunction and economic under-performance. Do you think it's a coincidence that nearly all the states and countries in the world that have the best sustained quality of life (as opposed to brief periods of prosperity fueled by asset bubbles) are liberal? I don't think so. I think there's a reason, for example, that Massachusetts outperforms Mississippi. I think that when you have a society working together to set up the conditions for general prosperity, things go better than when people take glee in their own selfishness. Over the long term, we're stronger together. When you neglect children born into poor families, they become a future source for crime, disease, and poor productivity, whereas when you help them overcome the hurdles of their early lives, they end up making you and yours more prosperous, in the long run.
 
Rune said:
Her link.
Did you read it?
Click to expand...

I did.

The military promises to feed you, and they do so primarily by using three separate methods: chow or mess halls, basic allowance for subsistence, and meals-ready-to-eat.

If you are enlisted and reside in the dormitory or barracks, in most cases, you will be given your meals for free. Different services have different names for this. In the Air Force, it's called being on a Meal Card (although physical cards are rarely used anymore).

Most chow halls offer four meals per day: breakfast, lunch, dinner, and a midnight meal. Some are open 24 hours a day.

For the health conscious, there is a heart-healthy menu, as well as a salad bar. For breakfast, you can choose anything between a small fruit cup to a full-fledged made-to-order omelet with all the side dishes. Take-out cartons are freely available in many chow halls. Some military dining facilities even have drive-through windows.

In recent years, the military has been trying to reduce the number of chow halls at its facilities, as the size of the Armed Services has shrunk. And the menus are becoming more and more healthy, which may deter some younger troops from partaking, especially if inexpensive fast food is readily available nearby.

KP Duty in the Military
Other than a few exceptions at some military training centers, boot camp, while embarked on a vessel, while deployed, etc., kitchen patrol, or KP, duty is a thing of the past. Most military dining facilities are contracted operations, so troops aren't assigned to KP.

Although there are procedures to be reimbursed for missed meals, they are paperwork intensive and usually require justifications and explanations to the first sergeant and or the commander.

Enlisted and officers receive full-rate BAS after initial entry training. However, for those required to consume meals in the dining facilities, most of the BAS is automatically deducted from their paychecks.

Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS)
For officers and enlisted people who do not reside in the dormitories, the military pays a monetary allowance for food. BAS is an allowance, not pay. It is not taxable. Officers are paid less BAS than enlisted personnel.

The allowance is not designed or paid to provide any subsistence to family members. It is solely for the subsistence of the military member.

It used to be that when an enlisted member deployed, and they received BAS, they would lose the BAS during the time of deployment (because they received "free meals" at the deployment location Chow Hall). However, responding to complaints of many service members following the first Gulf War, Congress passed a law requiring the military to continue to pay BAS to deployed members, if the member received BAS at their permanent duty station.

Enlisted members who receive BAS are usually authorized to eat in the dining facility (they have to pay for the meal), but the number of meals they are allowed is restricted. Officers may only eat in the enlisted mess for special purposes, requiring special permission (for example, a commander checking on the quality of meals).

Military Meals Ready to Eat (MRE)
No article on military food would be complete without mentioning MREs. These have replaced the old C-rations and field rations. MREs are sealed, foil envelopes and can be heated or eaten cold.

The packet contains an entree, a side dish, crackers and cheese spread, a dessert item, cocoa powder, and a few other misc. snack items. There are several choices of entrees.

Every couple of years the Department of Defense surveys military members to find out which MREs were popular and which were not. Unpopular menu items are taken out of service, and new menu items are introduced all the time.

You don't have to join the military to try an MRE if you're so inclined. They are available in many camping stores and most military surplus stores.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-the-recruiter-never-told-you-3332717
 
Oneuli said:
I'm not determining your morals. I'm observing your lack of them.



That's an option -- and it's a terrible option, because it results in growing social dysfunction and economic under-performance. Do you think it's a coincidence that nearly all the states and countries in the world that have the best sustained quality of life (as opposed to brief periods of prosperity fueled by asset bubbles) are liberal? I don't think so. I think there's a reason, for example, that Massachusetts outperforms Mississippi. I think that when you have a society working together to set up the conditions for general prosperity, things go better than when people take glee in their own selfishness. Over the long term, we're stronger together. When you neglect children born into poor families, they become a future source for crime, disease, and poor productivity, whereas when you help them overcome the hurdles of their early lives, they end up making you and yours more prosperous, in the long run.
Click to expand...

If you want to see those that lack morals, look at those refusing to feed THEIR kids.

When one part of society isn't doing their part with even the basic things in life and constantly demands the other parts be forced to do it on their behalf, that's not working together. That makes us weaker because we have a large group in society that refuses to do for themselves and bleeding hearts like you that enable the weak ones to remain weak.

Wanting to keep more of what you've earned isn't selfish. Maybe you don't understand what earn means. When people that refuse to earn their own way demand someone that is give them something, that's selfish on the part of the one doing the demanding. I do have another option. If you truly care as much as you claim, take them into your home. If you think doing for someone that refuses to do for him/herself every time they refuse to do so will cause the person to be better, you're a fool.

It's simple. If I didn't get the pussy it came out of, it's not my responsibility to feed it. However, if you believe otherwise, open your wallet and give away everything you have. Anything less proves you're nothing more than words.
 
CFM said:
If you want to see those that lack morals, look at those refusing to feed THEIR kids.
Click to expand...

You're mistaking inability for refusal. The vast majority of them wish to do the best they can for their families, but are having financial trouble. The moral thing to do is to help them. Not only is it the right move, it's also the one that makes us stronger in the long run -- as you see from those studies. I realize that some selfish people don't have the morals to want to help. But you have to be both selfish AND short-sighted not to realize it's probably in your own long-term self interest to address deprivation in children's formative years, rather than waiting until they've grown up and become a more expensive issue.

However, if you believe otherwise, open your wallet and give away everything you have. Anything less proves you're nothing more than words.
Click to expand...

Obviously not. Presumably you could spot your error if you thought, instead, in terms of some program you agree with. For example, if you want a wall on our border, open your wallet and give away everything you have to fund it. If you think we need a bigger military budget, open your wallet and give away everything you have to fund it. Etc.
 
Oneuli said:
You're mistaking inability for refusal. The vast majority of them wish to do the best they can for their families, but are having financial trouble. The moral thing to do is to help them. Not only is it the right move, it's also the one that makes us stronger in the long run -- as you see from those studies. I realize that some selfish people don't have the morals to want to help. But you have to be both selfish AND short-sighted not to realize it's probably in your own long-term self interest to address deprivation in children's formative years, rather than waiting until they've grown up and become a more expensive issue.



Obviously not. Presumably you could spot your error if you thought, instead, in terms of some program you agree with. For example, if you want a wall on our border, open your wallet and give away everything you have to fund it. If you think we need a bigger military budget, open your wallet and give away everything you have to fund it. Etc.
Click to expand...

If they wanted to do their best, they would provide for their families. The moral thing to do is hold them accountable for supporting the results of the actions they took to produce their children.

Nothing selfish about wanting to keep what you've earned. There is, however, a sad level of selfishness when it comes to expecting someone else to care for you and YOUR kids. The taxpayer's don't owe you a damn thing and they aren't your ATM.

My long term self interest is to look out for those to whom I have a responsibility. Someone else's kids aren't part of that. If the parents don't think enough of their own kids to take care of them, their selfish demands some else do it falls on deaf ears.

It's not an expensive issue at all. I've shown you how it can work.

Security, which includes the military, is a well documented delegated authority and responsibility of the federal government. No such mention is made about doing for someone else's kids what their own parents refuse to do for them. Invalid comparison on your part but not surprised. Your kind tends to do that regularly when you equate things specifically mentioned in the Constitution and things you dream are there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top