Come on. Lunch costs $2.00. Slap a couple ham sandwiches. Isn't that what parents do. Oh pathetic bleeding heart.
Crap Crap Crap

Roy,
You have no clue. Not one ounce of a clue, not even a hint of clue.

And your heartless ways will lead you straight to where you belong.

Here's a clue: it isn't called heaven.

I would say if your heart never bleeds, THAT is pathetic. Adults should be encouraged in every reasonable way to be self-sufficient, children are another matter entirely.

so because our hearts bleed for the children we should *force* everyone, bleeding hearts or not, to contribute to a system they may not support?

Charity loses its legitimacy when carried out through tax law.

Hey, I don't drive. Does that mean I can refuse to contribute taxes that help keep up roads? I don't support the police department, can I opt out of the portion of my taxes that goes to the police? Society is an agreement between people to work for the greater good. You can't pick and choose which parts of the agreement you like.

Your Snideley Whiplash caricature of conservatives aside, the issue isn't big meanie conservatives not wanting free lunches for poor kids, the issue is free breakfast for everyone, poor or not, funded by a "slight hike in school lunch prices for children not eligible for reduced-price lunch."

(Since when is a 33% price increase a "slight hike"?) Why not make the free breakfast available to the same kids that are eligible for the free lunch, rather than the more costly program to provide the breakfast across the board?

I have no issue with the lunches being provided to the kids with the most need, but that was hardly the suggestions offered around the blogosphere.

Those opposing it wanted no part of offering free school lunches TO ANYONE.

And suggesting that kids do menial tasks for their lunches, further stigmatizing them and making them feel ostracized by their peers is REALLY CRUEL.

Yep, it's easy to be a calculating accountant with everyone's tax dollars when you don't have to worry about life's necessities: LIKE FOOD.

Good Lord people, it's not like they were offering them housing, GOD FORBID.

OK, some of you don't like your tax money going to help these poor kids. I really don't know why, but I am sure you have your reasons.

Hey, there's things I don't want my tax dollars going to. For example, to the war in Iraq, a war which I was opposed to from the very beginning.

But if I say that around some right-wing folks, I am unpatriotic. But I am forced to support it with my dollars because, that's just the way it is. Right?

And it's the same with this. Although, of course, I like it when my tax money is used to help the poor. But for those of you who don't, sorry. It's just the way it is.

And no, I won't call you "anti-child" like you call me unpatriotic.

Conservatives are not monolithic: some of us have a strong libertarian streak and can't stand the phoney "conservative" blue blazer, red tie, short haired greedy SOB's that badmouth feeding kids while gorging at the gov't trough of tax cuts and tax shelters. While I'm a conservative because I think abortion would be nearly unnecessary if effective birth control was used and I currently have a sore shoulder from shooting my assault rifle over the weekend, I have no problem with kids getting free school lunches and participating in WIC or food stamps. If a stray cat wanders up onto the porch, I feed it. If kids are hungry, I'm for feeding them as well.

So I'm a "Nazi" because I object to having money extracted at gunpoint to provide free stuff to other people?

Conservatives who support spending billions to build schools and hospitals in Iraq are morally obligated to support using taxpayer money to feed poor children here. To take any other position is to wallow in absolutely unbelievable hypocricy.

Hmm, I agree with Mike on a political matter - what can this mean?

BTW, Dawn #7 and Dawn #8 are different people.

As usual, Mike is WRONG. The justification for spending some money for Iraqi infrastructure is our own security. We're talking about probably not 1% as much as is spent routinely on American social welfare programs, depending on how you define such things. Even this will be for a limited time.

The country has been drug through the mud for a generation, and we intend to give them a modest hand up for a couple of years to replace some of the stuff that we've broken in a couple of wars, and to get them started.

Again, this is a temporary measure for our own security interest in having a stable, at least somewhat free country in the region. If we're still giving out big bucks five years from now, then it's something else.

Sure Al, that line of logic makes COMPLETE sense.

Let's help our enemies, but I'LL BE DAMNED IF I AM GIVING ONE DIME TO A HUNGRY CHILD IN THIS COUNTRY.

What? Are you made of stone?

I had to check the author header a couple of times. (gimme a minute to check again ... uh, huh that's the one) Holy crap, it's Dawn!

One book you could have included was Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America

Considering we are having an election in Onscario (Yours to Avoid) where the goverment weasels call the opposition leader an evil reptilian kitten-eater, well, school lunches are not even on the radar. Cause they got highways to build and education budgets to cut.

All I know is that school lunches were some of the best nutrition I got growing up. So to beat up on the most defenseless is just to be plain, pure evil.

What amazes me is how everybody thinks they are a lottery winner, when logic dictates almost everybody is a loser. Which means unless you take care of the losers, you are a loser too.

And if you gloat about how much you beat up on the defenseless, you are an evil fuck.

In fairness, when they raised the price of a lunch from $1 to $1.50 to pay for the free breakfasts for all, did they recalculate the income qualifications for people who get free lunches? Beause it would seem to me that the people just on the other side of the official "free lunch line" will be hit hardest. The people under the line still get free breakfast and free lunch, as they should, and the people well over the line can well afford the extra $.50/day. The people just over the line will find the extra cost high, although I guess they might be able to "make it up" with the free breakfast.

It may not seem like much to some people, like the first commenter, Roy, but an extra $2.50 a week per kid is a lot to some people.

Dawn, you're becoming a bit hysterical here. I understand your concerns, but please calm down.

I'm all in favor of helping out. I've been known to do it myself from time to time. Americans are the most generous philanthropists in the world. I specifically do NOT regard it as a moral imperative, but simple human empathy makes me WANT to ameliorate suffering.

However, there's all the difference in the world between me freely giving of my own money versus taking money at gunpoint from people who can't afford it, or don't like the way it's being spent.

The fact that you have decided that you "need" something does not give you the right to take it from someone else at gunpoint. And don't kid yourself that the government gets the money any other way.

It's questionable but somewhat justifiable to demand that people pony up for basic items of common defense, ie the military and basic police and courts that people can't very well provide for themselves individually but benefit EVERYONE.

Demanding that they give money for social welfare is entirely wrong, however. It's just plain stealing.

The same considerations about human nature that make government mandated welfare wrong also tend to suggest that it will be bad for the whole society. Trillions of dollars and decades of welfare state politics tend to confirm the point.

I emphasize that Iraq is NOT our enemy. Our enemy was the Ba'ath regime. They're pretty well gone now, and we're busily hunting down the remnants. It's really only fair that we help repair some of the damage to the infrastructure that we've blasted up over the last dozen years. It's also a practical US defense consideration to help stabilize the country and get them on the right track.

I also object to your totally inappropriate use of the word "nazi." A thoughtful Jewish woman such as yourself should know better. That's more of a Brian Flemming type tactic, isn't it? [ie Glenn Reynolds, fascist hatemonger] Not wanting to give more tax money for yet another social welfare program does not constitute "beating up on the most defenseless" nor does it even vaguely have anything to do with the Third Reich.

Appropriately enough, Franken's "Supply Side Jesus" is online now:

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html

So for our Scrooge-like cranks here...what exactly *do* you do to help others if you're so against the government doing so?

Al,

Don't call me hysterical, don't be patronizing. AND WHATEVER YOU DO, don't call me Ms. Dawn, or I will show you hysterical.

As for your statements above all I can think to ask is WHEN AL, WHEN has the government extorted money from you at gunpoint.

You don't like the tax system in this country, move somewhere else. We don't pick and choose as individuals where our money goes.

Get a grip Al, you are being hysterical.

MY CONVERSION TO CONSERVATIVE ALMOST COMPLETE
Posted by Dawn Olsen on January 29, 2003 10:28 AM

My transformation from bleeding heart liberal to heartless conservative is almost complete. I have had the blood transfusion of Henry Kissinger, the last remaining functioning brain cells of Ronald Reagan inserted into my cranium, the specialized lying gene of Oliver North infused in my nervous system and last but not least, I drank the blood of the poor from the ghetto.

Yes my friends, I will be a heartless Conservative soon. Perhaps Ann Coulter and I can do lunch? Maybe Rush will invite me to co-host with him? Maybe I will be included in the inner circle of "KEEP THE LITTLE MAN DOWN AND IMPERIALISE THE WORLD WITH OUR BRAND OF DEMOCRACY" right-wing conservatives and we can all sit around smoking cigars waxing poetic on the state of the world as we manifest our destiny to obtain IRAQ's oil.

Does the above sound like a load of horseshit to you? If you are a conservative and you read that, I expect two responses: Vigorous Head Scratching or Knowing Laughter. If you are a liberal I expect one response: SHEER AND UTTER OUTRAGE.

Yes folks, it is true. The only calculated response by the Left is SHEER AND UTTER OUTRAGE. That is a pretty intense response to maintain to ALL THINGS THAT GLEAM OF REALITY. I can see it now, the liberals were sipping their sour grapes while listening to Bush's speech and instead of "listening" they were remarking on how the VP has no neck and the Speaker has no neck, what a bunch of fatties those two are. Oh wait, that was what I was saying. No what the Left heard was "blah, blah, blah, Taxes,blah, blah,blah, Destroy the Environment, blah, blah, blah WAR FOR OIL."

Gee, that's funny, cause what I heard was a man, who only 3 years ago I wanted to burn in effigy, give an excellently delivered speech that was both heartfelt, principled, passionate and sincere, but also RIGHT ON with what I think this country needs.

The new economic growth will be Energy technology. Mark my words. I know that I received an additional $500 back on my taxes this year over last year and have had an even higher percentage still than when the Dems were running the place. Hey, I don't make this stuff up. I am the poor and I am feeling more government love than I ever have.

That is not to say that all is rosy in the world right now. Because it isn't. I don't have a steady source of income. I am very worried about the men and women of our armed services facing the Evil and Ruthless dicatator of Iraq, who will most assuredly strike back with chemical and biological weapons at our troops and our friends and allies in ISRAEL. Let's not forget Israel. Does anyone REALLY think that Middle East is going to decide on it's own that they need to embrace their Semite brothers of Israel, unless we force them to do so?

Well that right there is the crux of this post, those who live in a dream world are also the same ones who think that the Conservatives of this country are Evil incarnate. They hear nothing, they see nothing and worst of all THEY DO NOTHING.

Don't call me a liberal. You can call me a middle of the road conservative who was converted over time, BY LISTENING, READING, FILTERING ENDLESS PILES OF PROPAGANDA BY THE LEFT, and most of all watching the way the Conservatives conduct themselves, compared to the way the Liberals conduct themselves.

Hilary is pathetic. Lieberman is a talking head with NO ORIGINAL IDEAS OR IDEALS. I am fed up with the entire Democrat party. They are embarassing. Their behavior is outrageous. They all remind me of middle managers at the most mismanaged company on earth. Taking credit for what their subordinates did and then spoonfeeding bullshit to the upper tiers and ultimately looking out for one person: themselves.

I don't know what speech the Dems saw last night, but I can't wait to cast my vote in 2004.

Dawn - I personally do not have a problem with my tax dollars going to buy lunches for children. It isn't their fault that their parents can't afford it and a hungry belly is a distracted one.

I also am in favor of tax dollars spent on books in the school and internet access. Got to keep them informed and educated, something that with the introduction of things like the WASL test it should make it less of a free ride to getting a diploma. The children of today are the lawmakers of tomorrow when I'm knock, knock, knocking on senility's door, so it's damned important (to me, anyway) to keep them well fed and educated and cared for.

As for extortion? Well, in a way there is extortion in the existing tax structure and system.

The government brings on "the gunpoint" aspect after someone elects to evade taxes -- in whole or in part. Oh, it might take some time and they will do nice things like lien property and such first, but for those who do not believe, nor can realistically afford some of the taxes, there is no opt-out or bartering choice. Can you escape taxation through bankruptcy and hard luck case exceptions? Maybe ...

So from a technical standpoint, if one doesn't pay every tax - to the penny -- and they are caught, and they still refuse or cannot come up with the $$$ to pay, they will be thrown in jail (at gunpoint, you bet!).

We pay our taxes in our businesses, some of them quite begrudgingly I might add, and if I had a choice, I'd be in favor of some sort of simple, basic flat tax.

It's all way too damn confusing when one owns multiple businesses, investments, property, etc. I could do my own taxes, but I don't want to take two weeks off work to research all the loopholes that might be legally available to our individual situation. Instead, I pay ridiculous amounts of $$ to have a return filed on my behalf that I'm still responsible for if something is wrong. What good, really, is a tax accountant if they aren't solely responsible for what they put their signature on? LOL

Some could say this isn't extortion, it's the price for staking a piece of land on American soil. Well, ok, I'll sort of buy that, but by definition, if I choose to eliminate say 30% of the taxes I'm paying because I don't agree or believe in what the taxes are going for, I'm most assuredly inviting the stormtroopers. Eventually.

With all that said, and just a friendly piece of advice from someone who enjoys most of the writing around here, those who SHOUT THEIR POINTS ACROSS, hurt my already weathered rock and roll ears. I think those good ole' italics work much better from an online reader standpoint, anyway.

Good piece, keep writing :)

Poopface,

I can be a conservative about lots of things and still think poor kids who are hungry should be fed. What's your point.

Oh wait, you just like my writing. Thanks. I try hard to please.

Let me get this straight, Al; it's not okay for the government to take our money just to spend on poor people, but you want a strong defense department in the interest of "security"?

In other words, you object to the government taking your money at gunpoint, but you're willing to pay for their guns.

Yes JR, I'm willing to pay for guns and soldiers to protect us from attack or invasion. National defense would be nearly impossible to do individually. I might carry a .38 to defend myself against random muggers, but North Korean missle technology is out of my league. Stuff like that is the principle legitimate reason for having a government.

I'm not wanting to pay for guns so that the government will have them to use in the forcible redistribution of income. They're primarily to stop people from killing us.

On the other hand, my personal welfare is my responsibility. The world does NOT owe me a living. I have my support network of family as the primary backup, and lots of private philanthropy- which I'm all in favor of.

Again, I'm all in favor of helping the poor. I just don't think that government welfare is either the most effective or most moral way to go about it.

America, love it or leave it, huh Dawn? [comment 19] If I don't like having to pay as much of whatever kind of taxes as any bunch of jacklegs in congress or some legislature come up with, then to hell with me. Would that have been your advise to Thomas Paine and General Washington? The government is the master, and I should just meekly comply.

Taxes are compulsory, they are coercion. Don't even kid yourself to think otherwise. What do you think will happen if you don't "voluntarily" pay your income taxes? The IRS is the most feared of all government agencies for a reason.

They will in fact send people with guns to put you in jail- and confiscate your bank accounts and property anyway. They do it every day. Do you dispute this?

I have not literally had tax money taken at gunpoint, nor have most Americans. However, that is only because we know the guns are there, and we know we have to pay up OR ELSE.

Threat of force is the ultimate backup of government spending, or most people would NOT pay income taxes. If people agreed voluntarily to pay for a welfare program [which they do all the time], then there'd be no need for the government to be in the middle of it.

You may decide that social welfare programs far and above what anyone would voluntarily pay for are so important that you would support taking money from people at gunpoint. Do not, however, pretend that this is not what you are doing.

No hysteria involved here, just recognizing the plain underlying facts.