Posted on 05/10/2011 8:29:08 AM PDT by newzjunkey
Even after Hurricane Katrina I was given the impression that I should be paying taxes, not consuming them, when I looked into food stamps. I guess it has to do with my pigmentation.
It's a matter of choosing battles. The dress code doesn't call for dress shoes. Denying them breakfast because they had no dress shoes makes no sense.
So, the fact that you find these young boys <code word> uppity </code word> doesn't really matter.
Unless you have some *other* problem with them...perhaps?
My "take" is that Congressional action is needed to deal with the Congressional actions that helped to create this mess in the first place. The only way these programs go away, or are made sane, is if Congress (and other legislative bodies) makes it happen. That's just the way it is.
... and conservatives who disagree with this don’t care about kids.
Well, just look at the nice theories being put forth on this thread. The actual conditions of the actual kids don't even play into them. I'm sure the folks who put these theories forth, care about these kids in the abstract. But there's no human component to the policies they're proposing.
And look at what the left does, with great and repeated success, when "conservatives" propose to modify or end these welfare programs: they use these kids like clubs and beat the hell out of us every time. And it works, because we tend to offer no answer to their charges that doesn't make us sound like the heartless bastards they're already trying to make us out to be.
One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. I begin to wonder if some of our "conservatives" might not fit that definition.
There are two points here:
1) The conditions of these kids have been used politically against us for decades now, and conservatives have not figured out how to counter it without coming across as being heartless. And there's a reason for that:
2) These kids really are in a bad spot and they really do need help. They're not just little illustrations for conservative talking points, they're actual human beings who really are in trouble. To ignore them is not just politically stupid, but also morally wrong.
In an ideal world, these kids would be born to responsible parents. In the real world, they're not. What is to be done about them, even as we try to address the overall policy aspects of their situation?
We're going to get beat by that divide unless and until we can figure out how to bridge it.
Sadly, our local schools don't just do it for qualified children, they do ti for anyone 18 and under. What a colossal waste of money and detriment to society.
To which rule are you referring?
Local businesses run drives to collect donations for them. I'm not kidding.
Clever, Jeff -- in a mindlessly stupid sort of way.
However, I note that in making your little quip, you dodged the difficult question.
Why don't you give it a shot, though: what about those kids who are stuck in the middle right now: what do you propose to do about them?
Ahh yes, the "Al's Glass" approach. Which refers to the Far Side cartoon with a brick thrown through a window with the note attached saying, "Windows Broken? Call Al's Glass."
We tried "Compassionate Conservatism", it didn't work.
While I agree that it's likely a detriment to society (in the sense that it attracts freeloaders and grifters), I'd put it to you that buying even a bunch of extra food is still a whole lot cheaper and more efficient than hiring a bureaucracy to ensure that only "qualified" people are allowed in the doors.
So just surrender already, you pansy.
No I propose trying real conservatism.
>>I’d put it to you that buying even a bunch of extra food is still a whole lot cheaper and more efficient than hiring a bureaucracy to ensure that only “qualified” people are allowed in the doors. <<
That is part of the problem.
You don’t need a bureaucracy, you need one parent. Pay the parent 5.00 a day to make sure. Done.
No, instead we feed all the kids pancakes and bitch about obesity.
Glad I homeschool.
Well.... assuming the parent uses that money for food in the first place, it's odds-on that she will take the kid to McDonald's. You want "obese," that's a good place to get it. Other than the occasional pickle, most of those kids never even see a recognizeable vegetable.
Wow. Informative.
That's how pushers get people hooked on heroin, and get customers for life (however long that may be).
The problem is that the GOP is full politicians that have no interest in doing anything about changing the status quo, out of fear. So why should they expect any support from conservatives when they suggest their little symbolic measures to cut anything. The Rats attack, because they know nobody will have the limp-wristed moderates back anyways, so they're easy pickings.
You get somebody who can say the cold-hard truth and make an eloquent case for it, they will get the support from the silent majority, and they won't get pushed around by the libs, because they can throw it right back in their faces. Unfortunately there is nobody in the GOP right now that fits that profile, some think Palin could be that, but the jury is still out.
So basically you’re saying you have no faith that people can make rational decisions, and therefore we need the Nanny State to make sure their kids don’t starve, right?
Seems hardly like a fit for what we’re supposed to stand for here on FR.
If you don't know what real conservatism is maybe you should lurk more.
"Compassionate Conservatism" is neither.
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.