jacee Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Well, the way I'm looking at it is...I rather give $200.00 to the Food Bank then to let the Feds have it through taxes at income tax time. Support a kid, not the wasteful feds. That can help ... unless parents are unable/too drunk (etc) to go to the food bank. Why not give it to a school breakfast/lunch program instead, so it goes directly into a hungry kid's stomach? Nobody's suggesting government funding, unless municipalities want to kick in some. All school nutrition programs that I'm aware of in Canada are done through donations/charities. Edited May 25, 2012 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 We should clothe them. Give them shoes without holes, winter coats, etc. We should do what it takes to have them grow up healthy both mentally and physically. If the parents can't or won't do it, the kids should not suffer for it. It will save us a lot of money down the road. Maybe we should just take the kids away from those parents who are not capable of looking after them, hmm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 The children of the depression created the most successful and egalitarian welfare states ever. They saw what deprivation caused, and wanted a better world for their children. Unfortunately those children took it all for granted and started listening to the neo-cons and What you meant to say was 'unfortunately, that gave rise to the Baby Boomers, the most entitled, greedy, selfish generation in the history of the human race. And they grandly expanded the welfare state while refusing to actually fund that expansion, leaving the vast debt this created for their descendants to have to pay off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Well said Scotty.. The "entitled" have left the younger generation to pick up the pieces and clean up the financial mess that 30 years of "gimme this, gimme that, all for free" has left. What you meant to say was 'unfortunately, that gave rise to the Baby Boomers, the most entitled, greedy, selfish generation in the history of the human race. And they grandly expanded the welfare state while refusing to actually fund that expansion, leaving the vast debt this created for their descendants to have to pay off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Maybe we should just take the kids away from those parents who are not capable of looking after them, hmm? It's been tried. Social service agencies swing back and forth between removal and supporting kids in the parents' home. You're better off with the latter, unless the abuse is severe, and just providing supports to the family. Any number of foster kids will tell you that the real abuse started once they were in care, and being taken from your parents definitely leaves a scar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 What you meant to say was 'unfortunately, that gave rise to the Baby Boomers, the most entitled, greedy, selfish generation in the history of the human race. And they grandly expanded the welfare state while refusing to actually fund that expansion, leaving the vast debt this created for their descendants to have to pay off. The primary beneficiary of the expansion of that welfare state was the middle class. And the problem, as you say, was that they listened to the siren song of the neo-cons who claimed you could cut taxes and increase govt revenues. Money for nothing and chicks for free. Since 90% of Canadians now want the same or expanded govt services, while only 46% are willing to pay more taxes for them, it seems this entitlement mindset crosses generations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 The primary beneficiary of the expansion of that welfare state was the middle class. And the problem, as you say, was that they listened to the siren song of the neo-cons who claimed you could cut taxes and increase govt revenues. Money for nothing and chicks for free. Since 90% of Canadians now want the same or expanded govt services, while only 46% are willing to pay more taxes for them, it seems this entitlement mindset crosses generations. Well when you grow up with the benefits you want to keep them, but at some point someone will have sit down and explain to some people that borrowing to support a system that cannot otherwise be supported is not the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Well when you grow up with the benefits you want to keep them, but at some point someone will have sit down and explain to some people that borrowing to support a system that cannot otherwise be supported is not the answer. That's right. Taking a hard look at what we spend money on is, then raising taxes to pay for the services we want. Health care and education are the big ones, the military takes a fair chunk. As we're seeing now that the govt cutbacks are starting to bite, there isn't nearly as much fat in the system as people think. Or, that fat is what keeps the govt in power and will never be cut, while meat and bone are. If we want a modern state with a mostly contented populace, good social mobility and a highly productive workforce, that costs and we've gotta cough up the bucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 That's right. Taking a hard look at what we spend money on is, then raising taxes to pay for the services we want. Health care and education are the big ones, the military takes a fair chunk. As we're seeing now that the govt cutbacks are starting to bite, there isn't nearly as much fat in the system as people think. Or, that fat is what keeps the govt in power and will never be cut, while meat and bone are. If we want a modern state with a mostly contented populace, good social mobility and a highly productive workforce, that costs and we've gotta cough up the bucks. I think there may be more 'fat' than people actually think, but that's not to say that you can remove it easily. Re-engineering govt. from the ground up could save us billions and give us MORE services, but political bosses have no idea how to do this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Maybe we should just take the kids away from those parents who are not capable of looking after them, hmm? Pretty drastic and expensive and often not very successful. Why not just feed kids in school and give them a solid chance of overcoming their family limitations? As reported in the article, 5% of the student body has removed themselves from their home and are living on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 So your ok with Child abuse only if the stomachs are full? Pretty drastic and expensive and often not very successful. Why not just feed kids in school and give them a solid chance of overcoming their family limitations? As reported in the article, 5% of the student body has removed themselves from their home and are living on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 I think there may be more 'fat' than people actually think, but that's not to say that you can remove it easily. Re-engineering govt. from the ground up could save us billions and give us MORE services, but political bosses have no idea how to do this. As I said, I think a lot of that fat is what keeps the political bosses the bosses. We won't let them cut it because we like that fat. As for more efficient govt, govt doesn't seem that different than large corporations - they also have their inefficiencies. Just goes along with being a large organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 As I said, I think a lot of that fat is what keeps the political bosses the bosses. We won't let them cut it because we like that fat. I don't think we like it. As for more efficient govt, govt doesn't seem that different than large corporations - they also have their inefficiencies. Just goes along with being a large organization. And they have cutbacks from time to time... and sometimes they go out of business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 So your ok with Child abuse only if the stomachs are full? No, I'm not ok with child abuse, but it's a separate issue and a distraction from the topic of feeding hungry kids. Don't you think we should feed them to give them a real chance of success in school? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 I don't think we like it. And they have cutbacks from time to time... and sometimes they go out of business. Your fat is somebody else's meat and bone. Govt also has cutbacks. They never seem to get it right, where they really do cut just inefficiencies. but then as I was saying, inefficiencies will be part of any large organization. And those inefficiencies don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the costs of the big programs we want, like health care and education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 That's right. Taking a hard look at what we spend money on is, then raising taxes to pay for the services we want. Health care and education are the big ones, the military takes a fair chunk. As we're seeing now that the govt cutbacks are starting to bite, there isn't nearly as much fat in the system as people think. Or, that fat is what keeps the govt in power and will never be cut, while meat and bone are. If we want a modern state with a mostly contented populace, good social mobility and a highly productive workforce, that costs and we've gotta cough up the bucks. I don't think most of the savings will come from programs and services we don't need, most would come from better efficiency in the government. Let some forensic accounts loose in the federal government and have each and every department justify all their expenses. I bet we can cut a lot of jobs from all departments and increase productivity. There will always be a level of inefficiency in a large organization like a government but we should strive to eliminate it. If we cut 5% of all budgets by eliminating the wasteful parts or useless layer of bureaucracy that actually decreases the level of services provided rather then increasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 I don't think most of the savings will come from programs and services we don't need, most would come from better efficiency in the government. Let some forensic accounts loose in the federal government and have each and every department justify all their expenses. I bet we can cut a lot of jobs from all departments and increase productivity. There will always be a level of inefficiency in a large organization like a government but we should strive to eliminate it. If we cut 5% of all budgets by eliminating the wasteful parts or useless layer of bureaucracy that actually decreases the level of services provided rather then increasing. They try that periodically - doesn't work very well. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying don't count on it to lower your taxes much. The problem is how to even define efficiency in a govt - it's not a profit making enterprise. How do you define efficiency in many social services? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 They try that periodically - doesn't work very well. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying don't count on it to lower your taxes much. The problem is how to even define efficiency in a govt - it's not a profit making enterprise. How do you define efficiency in many social services? I don't care if they lower my taxes, I care if we can find a way to run an efficient government and lower the national debt, increasing the military's efficiency by removing the bases that are not needed but are kept because of political reasons. We make government more efficient and we can find ways to get more services for the same money while at the same time pay down our debts and build some kind of a rainy day fund. If we can run a surplus and start paying down the dept we can further free up funds and our interest payments shrink. Right now we have an inefficient government that provides inefficient services and borrows money just to pay ridiculous sums in interest to support those inefficient services.At some point something has to give, either we need to raise more taxes, cut services or find efficient ways to run the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Well, the LOGICAL thing would be to remove them from that environment you painted! Oxy-Mom and heroin dad? Do you HONESTLY think that a full belly would help?? Sure, nice jesture, he will be happy about the banana when daddy beats him or shakes him down for his ipod.. Take the kids away and off of a funded food program and hand them to a loving couple who would appreciate and take care of the child.. No, I'm not ok with child abuse, but it's a separate issue and a distraction from the topic of feeding hungry kids. Don't you think we should feed them to give them a real chance of success in school? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Well, the LOGICAL thing would be to remove them from that environment you painted! Oxy-Mom and heroin dad? Do you HONESTLY think that a full belly would help?? Sure, nice jesture, he will be happy about the banana when daddy beats him or shakes him down for his ipod.. Take the kids away and off of a funded food program and hand them to a loving couple who would appreciate and take care of the child.. Sigh....emotion again. You dont have a grasp of the situtaion, you have an extreme mentality, thus they are all either heroin or Oxy addicts. We are not talking about physical abuse, nor is every child that is hungry in a bad family. Things happen, and the support network that should exist can and does fill in the gap. Dad and mom may have lost thier job and their kids are still growing, maybe out of thier wintert coat, thus there are solutions to the short term and thats give the kid a coat. Same goes for food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Yup, Whats the matter with a food bank? Why does a meal need to cut into the leaning time? If i lost my job or fell in a hard spot.. I would have NO BONES about visiting my local food-bank.. None in the least.. Would you rather tax me even more when im out of a job and trying to feed my child? Sigh....emotion again. You dont have a grasp of the situtaion, you have an extreme mentality, thus they are all either heroin or Oxy addicts. We are not talking about physical abuse, nor is every child that is hungry in a bad family. Things happen, and the support network that should exist can and does fill in the gap. Dad and mom may have lost thier job and their kids are still growing, maybe out of thier wintert coat, thus there are solutions to the short term and thats give the kid a coat. Same goes for food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Well, the LOGICAL thing would be to remove them from that environment you painted! Oxy-Mom and heroin dad? Do you HONESTLY think that a full belly would help?? Sure, nice jesture, he will be happy about the banana when daddy beats him or shakes him down for his ipod.. Take the kids away and off of a funded food program and hand them to a loving couple who would appreciate and take care of the child.. What environment do you have that's better? Do you know anything about the foster care system and the problems therein? You'd have to spend a lot more money to improve it, and it still wouldn't be the same as living with your family. Those loving couples just aren't out there. If the worst scenario is that mom and dad are addicted to opiates, if we had a proper drug strategy that provided more rehab and failing that drug maintenance, they could be a lot better parents than many type A people who just give their kids toys and no attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Yup, Whats the matter with a food bank? Why are you flip flopping? I thought, according to you, they are all heroin and oxy addicts, not to mention 3 posts ago you advocated for the kids to be moved from the home if they are hungry....and given to a loving family? Did anyone say anything bad about a food bank? Why does a meal need to cut into the leaning time? If i lost my job or fell in a hard spot.. I would have NO BONES about visiting my local food-bank.. None in the least.. Would you rather tax me even more when im out of a job and trying to feed my child? Did someone say we should cut into learning time? No one did. We can assume most folks would know breakfast programs are run at breakfast time and then school starts. I guess I cant assume most would be able to follow. If you get in a hrad spot , best put your kids on the stoop w a sign "Free to loving home' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Follow along please.... It was the other posted to refered the context of Oxy-Mon and heroin-dads... Why are you flip flopping? I thought, according to you, they are all heroin and oxy addicts, not to mention 3 posts ago you advocated for the kids to be moved from the home if they are hungry....and given to a loving family? Did anyone say anything bad about a food bank? Did someone say we should cut into learning time? No one did. We can assume most folks would know breakfast programs are run at breakfast time and then school starts. I guess I cant assume most would be able to follow. If you get in a hrad spot , best put your kids on the stoop w a sign "Free to loving home' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Food banks are way overstretched. And, if the parents are not functioning well, how does a food bank help a kid at school? Schools should have free breakfast and lunch programs serving nutritious food to anybody that wants it. If the kids with money want to go to McD's instead, up to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.