ScottP Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Because it's fun. You respond so well and almost never throw the hook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 scott, you're a bizarre creature. you like kinky games in the bedroom with your boyfiends doncha? sick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottP Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 scott, you're a bizarre creature. you like kinky games in the bedroom with your boyfiends doncha? sick I just find it interesting how you can say mean, hateful things in response to other peoples post, but when someone calls bullshit on yours you get all defensive and resort to name calling and this (see above) fantasy play stuff. Just seeking a little equilibrium there Trask old buddy. No need to take it so personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 what would you have me do, scott? lick your sack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 You're still here? From 8 this morning to now? You must be unemployed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacierdog Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 This is a particulaly ironic one. On the basis of a faulty Department of Agriculture study the Bush administration is cracking down on that wasteful program, the free and reduced lunch program for kids. They are going to require verified proof of income rather than filling out the form. I'm sure that the teachers have lots of time to verfiy all that information and collectect from the parents who speak 19 languages in the Seattle schools. Â What a joke! Never mind that shrubby is throwing all the tax breaks he can bundle to the upper income buddies and that the overrun on almost any defense contract budget could pay for the lunch program several times over. This guy has no shame. Â I don't see how this is a problem at all. For the people who genuinely need the program, it will just be a matter of a little extra paperwork. And for the people abusing it, well, lotsa luck. It's a simple and obvious way to weed out some of the leeches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Yep, them dang school lunch kids. They might be a'wasting as much money as it cost for two lug nuts on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacierdog Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Yep, them dang school lunch kids. They might be a'wasting as much money as it cost for two lug nuts on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Â Look, I know as well as anybody that the military is anything but efficient. It's a gigantic, money swilling machine. But fact is, we need it. I personally try to do my part to minimize waste. And I can tell you, we get audited CONSTANTLY. We've got a fella who may be facing time in the brig for losing a $5000 part. People are held accountable for unreasonable losses. So hears where you say, "what's unreasonable and who decides that?" I don't know how to reduce defense spending. And, quite frankly, I'm pretty sure you don't either. And aside from that, I don't see what the one has to do with the other. Because we're wasting money on something as paltry as NATIONAL DEFENSE, we should continue to do so in another situation that someone has come up with a perfectly reasonable solution for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 is it realy so much to ask that people don't lie cheet and steal... realy? come on, especialy if you are going to go to the trouble of having a child. shouldn't you at least try, especialy when it is concerning them, to teach them how to play fair? Beilive me if you need the help, it wont seem like a big deal to fill out some paper work and you will be glad to have the help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Oh, that's what it is National Defense. Iraq is the wolf at our door and we're defending ourselves eh? Look, I have no problem with the average grunt trying to do his job, keep his nose clean, raise the family, and work in the armed forces. Â But it is a huge consumer of limited resources. We have an empire defender, not a nation defender. The policy is way outta wack. I mean why can't we sign the ban on land mines like other civilized countries. Why do we need to go to Iraq and likely spend 200 billion on an occupation (Treasury secretary estimate - then he got fired). Â My main point is that this administration (and others) takes aim at easy targets and vunerable groups. The military, well just shovel them more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 I think the parents should simply patrol themselves, much like big business will under Bush's environmental plans. (Alright. So the guy's a big fat stinking hypocrite, is he not? If not, please explain.) Â But, if we are to address one issue at a time, would income verification not be a good idea? My question is if there is ANY evidence of malfeasance on a level that would warrant the cost of implementing a verification program. (Muffy, so how many SUV drivers have you seen letting the schools feed their kids? Hmmm... Just as I thought.) Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacierdog Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 I don't think that in today's world, it suffices to simply wait for someone to come knocking on our door before we take action. We will never stop the turmoil in the middle east. It is simply rooted to deep in the cultures. But I'll be damned if we should just sit back and allow a country that openly despises us to secrectly develop the means to wreak havoc. Iraq has been defying the terms of the UN's resolution for over a decade. Again, how many times did they have to "amend" their "complete and honest disclosure?" Â And again to the lunch deally. Target them? As far as I can tell, the only people who will be targeted by this are the ones who are abusing the system. All I see coming from the Bush administration is an increase in accountability. You want to use government sponsored handouts? That's fine. Prove you are eligible. That's what these things are here for. And tax cuts for the rich? I can't even pretend to understand tax law, so I've got nothing to say about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 The bottom line is that the anti-Bush crowd will never agree with any policy or idea from him or his camp. Of course these people will never agree on anything. It could be raining Iraqi bullets and they'd have a problem with retaliation. They'd rather talk the problem to death. Fuck em', they're just along for the ride anyway...sooner or later they'll be arrested throwing bricks through some window during a peace rally. Â Go get em' GlacierDawg!! woof woof Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacierdog Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Fuck em', they're just along for the ride anyway...sooner or later they'll be arrested throwing bricks through some window during a peace rally. Â Â HAHAHHHAHHHA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Each bottle of drinking water on space shuttle flights costs $500,000. That's not a misprint. Feed the hungry little buggers. Kids learn more when they eat regularly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Each bottle of drinking water on space shuttle flights costs $500,000. That's not a misprint. Feed the hungry little buggers. Kids learn more when they eat regularly. Â where'd ya read that, freebird...in the Jetson's Newletter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Either the LA Times, NY Times, or Washington Post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacierdog Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Each bottle of drinking water on space shuttle flights costs $500,000. That's not a misprint. Feed the hungry little buggers. Kids learn more when they eat regularly. Â In a utopian society, we would have no crack whores, broken families or poverty. But we don't and as such, there are people who go hungry. It's a damn crying shame, but even if we do drop everything else we're doing to ensure that everyone gets bread, there are still going to be problems. We can't just ignore one thing to focus on the other. What we have is a dam with a million holes in it. Every hole requires attention, or the dam breaks. But you know what? I'm glad you're concerned for the kids. Good on you. Just try to come up with a solution that doesn't involve gutting a different program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Each bottle of drinking water on space shuttle flights costs $500,000. That's not a misprint. Feed the hungry little buggers. Kids learn more when they eat regularly. Â In a utopian society, we would have no crack whores, broken families or poverty. But we don't and as such, there are people who go hungry. It's a damn crying shame, but even if we do drop everything else we're doing to ensure that everyone gets bread, there are still going to be problems. We can't just ignore one thing to focus on the other. What we have is a dam with a million holes in it. Every hole requires attention, or the dam breaks. But you know what? I'm glad you're concerned for the kids. Good on you. Just try to come up with a solution that doesn't involve gutting a different program. dog, there's a history at NASA of being something other than a spendthrift. I threw out the comparison to illustrate how relatively absurd it is to police state lunch programs when funds are wasted so extravagantly elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacierdog Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Point taken. But I still don't see a problem with verification of income for free lunches. It certaintly won't hurt anyone who needs it. I don't see why we should throw it out the window just because there are still other areas that need alot of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Point taken. But I still don't see a problem with verification of income for free lunches. It certaintly won't hurt anyone who needs it. I don't see why we should throw it out the window just because there are still other areas that need alot of work. Â I totaly agree. we should hold parents responsalbe, and the government as well. Not just one or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacierdog Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 We're on the same wavelength on this one, muffy. Accountability. That's what it's all about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 But I still don't see a problem with verification of income for free lunches. It certaintly won't hurt anyone who needs it. Â The problem is of putting an extra workload on people who are already busy (teachers and parents) for no good reason. Cracking down on "school lunch fraud" is not going to save much money, if any, after figuring in the costs of the paperwork that somebody will have to get paid to do somewhere, even though they are probably just going to make teachers do most of the work for no extra compensation. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 I think there's a couple of different things going on here. Those involved in the program keep an eye on things. My wife is a teacher and they generally know the income level of the kids. The see the parents, sometimes drop the kids off at home. If something smells fishy they can deal with it. Â So this is a top down mandate. Based on a faulty Dept of Agriculture comparison of apples and oranges (program income level in one year, general census data from 6 years previous) they want to make a change. So now the overworked teachers are going to have to deal with more forms, they'll have to be collected in an organized manner at the district level, and then some new program in the Agriculture Dept will need to verify compliance. It sounds simple but it's not. So some kid who may be slightly over the guideline level gets a reduced fare lunch. Big deal. This proposal will save no money, take needed time from teachers, cost more on the federal level, and waste time. But, we gave the military a 14% increase last year and a 6% this year (not counting homeland security). Billions! Bud damm it, lets screw the lid on tigher on the school lunch program. It would be funny if it were not so ironically sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 why does it have to be either/or????? why not both? Â I think that all people, corporations, organizations governments etc. aught to be help accountable. 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.