or are you simply - emphasis on the 'simply' - blathering about something no one else is discussing [rhetorical question - of course you are]
you cannot possibly be speaking about the hungry students in school - the one this thread is discussingThey made the choice not to complete HS, or go to college, or attend a training school, or join the military.
is your reading comprehension at issue or is it that you want to infect yet another thread with your nonsensical diatribe [another rhetorical question - of course you do]
did those hungry students in school, the ones this bill would feed, did those students make a choice to be hungry? [again, rhetorical question - of course they didn't]why, why, why, why should I pay for their poor choices?
tell us why that is the kids' fault? why do you want to further inflict the kids with crappy parents by insisting they remain hungry and unfed? not a rhetorical question ... my surmise is because you haven't an ounce of empathy ... but why don't you tell us why you take such a dickish position against hungry kids who were born into povertyIf you are so physically incapacitated that you can't work, you have no business pumping out kids that you can't feed
again, we are not addressing feeding the piss poor parents ... we are talking about feeding their hungry kids. why are you so opposed to feeding hungry children?If you are so mentally deficient that you can't get a job, you have no business pumping out kids that you can't feed
Why should you expect that? They can if they chose, as some do, or they can pay the same percentage of their income as everyone else, which still works out to a lot of money without being discriminatory.why would someone with a professed legal education surmise that because i would expect the uber rich to be taxed progressively that such an opinion is based on either hate or envy
it simply makes common sense. only someone without out any would be unable to realize that those who have benefited the most from our nation's resources should be expected to pay the most to maintain the nation's greatness
It is not up to you, or anyone else, to decide what other's peoples "needs" are. That's up to the individual, not to a committee.because at that point of income, their fundamental needs are adequately provided for, leaving room for them to incur additional taxes - paid only above the $250,000 threshold - without significant detriment to their circumstances
They already have tax relief.for the same reason i advocate tax relief for the person earning minimum wage, whose income does not begin to cover essential needs
Because they earned their money, it is their money, and they are entitled to keep what they earned. They should not have to pay a larger proportion of theor income than others. You want to be rich, than get an education and work hard. Don't waste your youth and then later complain about "the rich".if someone possesses enough assets to realize $200,000+ in dividends annually, why would i be worried about their ability to care for themselves financially? answer that, counsel
Certainly children need to be fed but what alternatives have been looked at? Any? Or do you sincerely believe more government programs will eliminate poverty, such as The Great Society intended?one need not be a democrat or a socialist to recognize that hungry CHILDREN need to be fed. and by the government, if necessary, when their parents and the community's social assistance network is unable and/or unwilling to meet their fundamental needsWhich children are hungry? Who are their parents? What have their friends and neighbors done. Are there any volunteer organizations?but tell us why you think a great nation should allow its CHILDREN to go hungry ... explain that to us, squire
Answer these and you might get a better idea than just more government programs. The bureaucracy and the labor unions will like that, but not the long suffering tax payer.
what is your answer for it?
let's solve that problem
in the meantime, let's also solve the very real problem that their are hungry children in school who are not getting proper nourishment. why are you so opposed to feeding hungry students born into poverty?
it's a vicious cycle and continuing to pump "free" money/food into will do nothing to break it.
but that is really what this is all about. democrats wanting to increase the number of people dependent on govt...the people who tend to always vote democrat.
you propose to withhold food and nourishment from hungry children born into poverty as the way to prevent irresponsible people from having more children than they can care for
please tell me you can now see how irresponsible that approach is
[yes, i am dubious that you are able]