Is Anyone Listening? Does Anyone Care?

[OldWiseGuy]

now wait a moment, we are talking about nursing infants not babies on formula...that is a totally different topic....so please reevaluate your information to conform to the claim being made and please show where that baby that is nursing gets full stamp benefits not something smaller in case formula is needed because that was the claim that is suppose to be evidence in this and is not.

Please.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

lol the funny thing is that the objective arbitrator that you suggested I look into said the same of you that you claim of me....he even laughed out loud at some of your claims and denials especially after I quoted you in context....

Please.

 

[razzelflabben]

so was what you wrote accurate or not accurate?
did you have $100/person/month or not?
my college degree is in Dietetics and I got an A in my graduate degree class of "Maternal and Child Nutrition"

You talked about what you and your spouse spent for food, I assume that since you are married with jobs you are both adults, we have been talking about the nutritional requirements of growing children...do you not know the difference in nutritional requirements given your education?

 

[razzelflabben]

You all have been so focused on keeping your socialism that you have totally and completely missed my point and before you go off again about my communication skills, I have checked, I have been clear to anyone I can find who is not all emotionally charged about keeping socialism in our country.

In fact, one of those people laughed at how far you all would go to reinvent my arguments and try to paint an unfavorable picture of what I am saying just to keep your bias in tact.

 

[mama2one]

we have been talking about the nutritional requirements of growing children...?

was it accurate that you had $100/person/per month for food?

can appreciate the difficulty to provide healthy meals on low income; there are many people throughout the world who do it everyday and often children do only get one meal/day

read a report of one family where the parents only ate every other day so their child could eat one meal every day

do know that often children can recover from inadequate nutrition because our bodies are so amazing

our child lived in a very poor orphanage and came to us with her bones showing
for two yrs, only gave her nutritious food/no dessert
(except for her birthday cupcake)
did not allow anyone to give her lollipops (which weirdly every place tries to do) , nor allow cake/desserts at other family events
no juice boxes, no cookies, etc

after 2 yrs she was healthy and to this day, she turns down sweets/junk at school that teachers try to give as she knows it's not healthy
am I saying we never have a sweet here and there now
no, but we eat our frts/veggies first

despite 2 yrs of poor nutrition, our child is healthy and has never taken an antibiotic and didn't miss one day of school this yr

so I know kids can rebound after inadequate nutrition

 

[razzelflabben]

was it accurate that you had $100/person/per month for food?

years ago, yes...

can appreciate the difficulty to provide healthy meals on low income; there are many people throughout the world who do it everyday and often children do only get one meal/day

exactly and the point I have been making from the first post to this one is that the government is NOT the best solution to the problem...I have been accused of saying all kinds of other things but that is all their reinvention of my comments.

read a report of one family where the parents only ate every other day so their child could eat one meal every day

we have been in similar positions throughout our married lives...

do know that often children can recover from inadequate nutrition because our bodies are so amazing

amen and praise God they are....we have a young friend who was a homeless orphan on the streets of the Ukraine during his developmental years...he is healthy today but you can still see the effects of poor nutrition if you look at him.

our child lived in a very poor orphanage and came to us with her bones showing
for two yrs, only gave her nutritious food/no dessert
(except for her birthday cupcake)
did not allow anyone to give her lollipops (which weirdly every place tries to do) , nor allow cake/desserts at other family events
no juice boxes, no cookies, etc

one of the problems I talked about previously in this thread is how judgment affects those on stamps. So much so that even though we thought we protected our kids from it, our daughter who is now an adult was going off on people the other day for judging those on stamps for buying cake mix and/or ice cream to celebrate a birthday. Even the poor kids should be allowed to eat a piece of cake or have a bite of ice cream once a year for their birthday but many judge the poor for saying, "happy birthday, we are celebrating you, have a piece of cake while we sing happy birthday to you" I've seen it many times over and as I said I thought we had sheltered our kids from that while we were on stamps but apparently we didn't.

after 2 yrs she was healthy and to this day, she turns down sweets/junk at school that teachers try to give as she knows it's not healthy
am I saying we never have a sweet here and there now
no, but we eat our frts/veggies first

bravo...and as I have repeatedly said, where it is hard it is possible even on 100 dollars a month for food for each child....what I have a problem with is not that it is difficult, but that in this country we allow and even perpetuate an environment and economy where junk food is cheaper than good food which only encourages the judgment and stereotype that all poor people eat nothing but junk food. We had to live on food stamps for a season and my kids all would rather have fruit (not all of them are big veggie eaters) than sweets. In fact, our youngest is so opposed to sweets that he refuses to put sugar in koolaid when he has it and yet several times over on this thread alone I have been accused because I confessed to being on food stamps for a season....the judgment is part of the problem but another part is that junk food is cheaper and there is no legitimate reason for that. And yes I sited studies but was told that the poster likes his version better than the studies and stats.

despite 2 yrs of poor nutrition, our child is healthy and has never taken an antibiotic and didn't miss one day of school this yr

that is rare in todays society...I am another that has never had an antibiotic...some of our kids as well.

so I know kids can rebound after inadequate nutrition

amen and praise God they can and do.

 

[razzelflabben]

BTW, just to be clear, when we had stamps and had 100 per person per month for food, it was easier to provide well balanced diets for the kids on that then the 135 or whatever it is today....just saying it was easier then than now because the "raises" in stamps has not kept up with price hicks and even though milk is low right now that will not last as I said, many dairy farmers are shutting down because the price is too low, so milk will soon go up in price again.

 

[razzelflabben]

Oh and as I reviewed this site to see if I missed anything, to the poster that tried to equate malpractice with statistics that don't fit your narrative...I do not think that was the best use of your resources for making a valid point. Medical Malpractice and statistics that you don't like are very very very different things.

 

[mina]

This thread sort of went off the rails , so my reply is only to the OP. I have no problem with my tax money going to gov't programs that help people. And I have no problem giving extra money to charities (Christian or non) to help also. There is no one solution or way in which to alleviate poverty. It is a concern that should be reflected in our votes and in our personal actions. Using just the gov't to solve everything without charity, doesn't work and relying just on charity without any involvment/funds from gov't doesn't work either as effectively. Personally I believe gov't programs should be protected and I will vote and take action accordingly.

 

[razzelflabben]

This thread sort of went off the rails , so my reply is only to the OP. I have no problem with my tax money going to gov't programs that help people. And I have no problem giving extra money to charities (Christian or non) to help also. There is no one solution or way in which to alleviate poverty. It is a concern that should be reflected in our votes and in our personal actions. Using just the gov't to solve everything without charity, doesn't work and relying just on charity without any involvment/funds from gov't doesn't work either as effectively. Personally I believe gov't programs should be protected and I will vote and take action accordingly.

can you provide some sort of evidence that the government funded programs are effective on any level such as how funds are spent as in how much money goes to the impoverished and how much to administration...or how the government programs are effective in getting people off such programs...or any other such beneficial help the government programs give other than the number of people on the program which does nothing to tell us about how effective it is

 

[Old Trapper]

. Our leaders whether christian or not do not determine who we are as a people, we do.

And that is why Trump was elected when good men were available to do the job, right?

Second as far as History goes I never claimed anything about people starving to death, that is your emotions reading into what I said. What I said is that when the government steps back, individuals step in and I showed that through the depression era...as to the happiest countries, I have seen this stat and I have seen stats and individuals that live in these countries disagree with those stats and since the criteria itself is subjective it does not really help our discussion. For example, if Happy was a measurable quantifiable term we might be able to work with it but since it is totally subjective the stats only offer us an argument equivalent to "he said, she said". In fact, I could produce studies that show that happiness is something we choose which would mean that nothing the government does affects our happiness....what does that tell us about stats on the happiest countries? You have to provide more than that.

And I showed your version of history to be false. And what "stats" have you presented? None. Just your own version of reality. Even during the Depression it was the government that stepped in, not "stepped back" to fill the needs of the people.

For example, if you want to make a case for government control do so through scripture, through the effective distribution of the funds available, improved quality of life for the poor as in opportunity for them to get out of poverty, etc. The problem you will have is that the government cannot and will not provide any of those things and they can be measured. In fact, stats show that government benefits only statistically help to keep people in poverty not provide them a way out.

Why would I use scripture for a secular idea? You haven't used scripture for anything you have mentioned.

Next, now is the time to present some of those "stats" you love to talk about.

6 Ways Greed Keeps You Poor

BTW, do you agree with this scripture, or not? And are you willing to do so?

2Corinthians 8: 13-15
“For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:"

 

[Old Trapper]

lol you disagree with me by showing me right...that is an odd way to try to make me sound wrong, but have it your way...I said that people would step in and I showed that and so did you....changes in our lifestyle are at least in part because we asked the government to do what we have previously been doing.

Funny how your mangled sense of "logic": works. Maybe you just chose to ignore the first saentence of my comment:

"It does have to do with your claim that when government "steps back" the people take care of others. Then you talk about the Depression forgetting that the government was forced to step in since the people could not take care of all the needs that arose."

In case you were absent on that day in your education class room, government did not "step back", it expanded its programs.

 

[razzelflabben]

And that is why Trump was elected when good men were available to do the job, right?

HUH? What are you going on about? Seriously!!!! As best I can tell Trump won for two reasons, 1. the Dems thought they could beat him so made sure he was on the ballot rather than one of the more qualified candidates and 2. the majority of the people (I know that some say Hillary won popular vote but I have seen stats that question even that, so here I am talking about states not individuals so that we don't end up in some contest over who dislikes Trump more, you or me) were tired of the same old same old when it comes to politics.

The problem is that none of that, not a single part of it has anything to do with our discussion. You talked about leaders, both religious and otherwise setting an example of not giving and caring and I responded that NON CARING LEADERS of all kinds are no excuse for you and I and every other reasonable person on the face of this earth doing our part...now I don't know how you get from my response to some political agenda about Trump but unless you find a way to explain the connection in a logical way I will assume you are trying to flame me and treat it accordingly.

And I showed your version of history to be false. And what "stats" have you presented? None. Just your own version of reality. Even during the Depression it was the government that stepped in, not "stepped back" to fill the needs of the people.

you did no such thing!!!!! You changed my claim then talked about government programs that were in place during the same time period. In order for you to falsify my claim you need to 1. address my actual claim and 2. show that people of the day did not help one another more than they do today....even in what you called a falsification you showed that they did, you just said that they did because it was a different period of time, which is kind of ridiculous since we are talking about history....lol....I mean the very word History implies there was a different period of time being talked about which would mean that the culture was different but my claim was that the different culture was more compassionate towards helping one another which you showed with your response. ....which makes you comment here laughable and so incredible that you think it is wise that it makes me think you might be flaming on purpose and that you need to be ignored before you say or do something even worse for the cause you are trying to plead for.

Why would I use scripture for a secular idea? You haven't used scripture for anything you have mentioned.

huh? You talked about how believers were suppose to behave I pointed out that scripture tells us to take care of all fellow beings not just our fellow believers....where do you want to go to find out how believers are to behave towards others? The Koran? Come on, even you can do better than this. This post makes me feel like I am in the Twilight Zone or on some gag show.

Next, now is the time to present some of those "stats" you love to talk about.

6 Ways Greed Keeps You Poor

what do you want to talk about here and why? Not to mention what stats that are related to the topic of discussion do you think are being presented here? Of course greed keeps the poor poor but that isn't the only reason there is poverty and greed was never on the table for discussion that I know of, I mean, a duh reason seems kind of ridiculous to discuss.....but then again this entire response has been incredible to begin with since not a single thing reflects our discussion in any real way but rather in an out of this world, out of one's mind kind of "I want to argue with someone and you will do" kind of way.

BTW, do you agree with this scripture, or not? And are you willing to do so?

2Corinthians 8: 13-15
“For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:"

The passage in context is talking about the church and yes, from the standpoint of the church I believe it should be followed....my husband and I do fail in this since we willingly live with less then the average person in fact, we are in the low percentage and willingly stay there to help others who are suffering....have done it many times over, that is giving what we couldn't afford to give so that others could have what they needed. A few times have had people do the same for us. But again the context of this passage is the church or fellow believers and not the world at large so not a call to equality in money as many of the socialist agenda try to turn it into.

 

[razzelflabben]

Funny how your mangled sense of "logic": works. Maybe you just chose to ignore the first saentence of my comment:

"It does have to do with your claim that when government "steps back" the people take care of others. Then you talk about the Depression forgetting that the government was forced to step in since the people could not take care of all the needs that arose."

wow...you do realize that the depression was deeply grained into our society before the government stepped in and that according to many studied the government intervention prolonged the depression rather than helping or shortening it, right?

https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/02/01/the-great-depression-and-the-role-of-government-intervention
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

In case you were absent on that day in your education class room, government did not "step back", it expanded its programs.

Yep...see above...I didn't miss my government class but apparently you missed yours.

 

[Old Trapper]

wow...you do realize that the depression was deeply grained into our society before the government stepped in and that according to many studied the government intervention prolonged the depression rather than helping or shortening it, right?

https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/02/01/the-great-depression-and-the-role-of-government-intervention
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate Yep...see above...I didn't miss my government class but apparently you missed yours.

Sorry, never said the the Depression was not extended. Did say you were wrong about the government stepping back. Guess that is what upset you.

Then too, like everything else, there is a difference of opinion:

#37 – If FDR's New Deal Didn't End the Depression, Then It Was World War II that Did | Burton W. Folsom

 

[Old Trapper]

HUH? What are you going on about? Seriously!!!! As best I can tell Trump won for two reasons, 1. the Dems thought they could beat him so made sure he was on the ballot rather than one of the more qualified candidates and 2. the majority of the people (I know that some say Hillary won popular vote but I have seen stats that question even that, so here I am talking about states not individuals so that we don't end up in some contest over who dislikes Trump more, you or me) were tired of the same old same old when it comes to politics.

None that are honest, just Trumps lies which he said he would support, and never did.

And with that I am done with this discussion.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry, never said the the Depression was not extended. Did say you were wrong about the government stepping back. Guess that is what upset you.

Then too, like everything else, there is a difference of opinion:

#37 – If FDR's New Deal Didn't End the Depression, Then It Was World War II that Did | Burton W. Folsom

lol you get funnier with every post...I don't mean that as an insult it's just that you get further and further removed from the things being said in each post...it helps if you address what is said not try to reinvent it...and yes, there are people who think the new deal ended the depression and they have been shown to be wrong, but no matter, your first response to my claim evidenced exactly what I claimed so I still am in the lead....lol funny how that works isn't it?

 

[razzelflabben]

None that are honest, just Trumps lies which he said he would support, and never did.

And with that I am done with this discussion.

I refuse to turn this into some political bashing like you are trying to do....as to you being done, you refraining from further posting will probably do more good for your cause then if you continue.