Tell Congress to Oppose Any Tax Bill That Would Increase Taxes for Seniors! Take Action Now

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 5,378
Registered: ‎04-28-2008

Re: MEALS ON WHEELS RATTLED

Message 61 of 82 (203 Views)

xrepub wrote:

There you go, thinking again, and in public.


Yes, you might want to try it. It's not painful and given...thinking with an OPEN mind, can produce some beneficial results.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 14,172
Registered: ‎03-20-2009

Re: MEALS ON WHEELS RATTLED

Message 62 of 82 (207 Views)

   Apparently the hater's of Seniors seem to believe as Mulvanely - if you can't see progress, then a program is a failure.    Maybe people should be taking pictures of the corpses as senior are found dead from starvation when this program becomes unfunded by the FED.    What the current idiots in DC are using to would judge "success" "   More seniors die due to starvation, BUT yea success because less money spent on Social Security and Medicare- their metric is $$$$, not people.  

    

    Are these oh-so smart folks going to eliminate education grants for Medical School - because that too has produced only a fixed number of physicians, aka, see no progress.

 

    It is obscene that some here seem to believe that society (charitable giving) in a local area is the solution to a problem - unless of course it negatively affects them.    If a city is too poor so support a MoW program - well then those Seniors deserve to die?   

 

     They use totally bogus charities to support their ignorance.   

 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 18,782
Registered: ‎02-14-2008

Re: MEALS ON WHEELS RATTLED

Message 63 of 82 (201 Views)

umbarch64 ..part of post..

I asked..
So you do not want charity to be involved..is that correct? I ask you were would we be without charity..like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc...were would you get the Government money to take care of what they do...increase taxes?

umbarch64 posted..
That is correct. I already answered that in my initial post. I say again...how that responsibility is divied up is not for you to determine. Taxes are the way our Government is intended to support it's activities, I consider your query to be self-serving, rhetorical, lacking candor and disengenuous.

==========================================================

"I say again...how that responsibility is divied up is not for you to determine"

As this form is about opinion I do have a right to post my opinion as do you.

"I consider your query to be self-serving, rhetorical, lacking candor and disengenuous."

That is your opinion...I do not agree!
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,673
Registered: ‎02-12-2011

Re: MEALS ON WHEELS RATTLED

Message 64 of 82 (199 Views)

KidBoy2 wrote:
umbarch64 posted..

Virtually ALL public service and social support programs must then move totally into the public OR private sector, public/private partnership is a NO-NO. IS THAT CORRECT? IF not, WHY not?

==================================================

One must look at each program and its not TOTALLY. In the case of Meals on Wheels I see , if needed money from city and state government could be used but not Federal funds.
I understand you to say it's just Federal money being used that causes YOU to object to governmental funds going to Meals on Wheels.  I interpret that to mean that 'locals' need to take care of their own problems, local being defined as township, county, city or state.  I think I made my position clear on this.  IF a need exists, it up to all the jurisdictions involved to cooperate in meeting that need.  The entire Society is responsible.  Because of the complexity of that Society the responsibility extends across the entire scope of that Society. How that responsibility is divied up is not for you to determine.  We elect presumeably more knowledgeable and competent people than you or I do do that.

So you do not want charity to be involved..is that correct? I ask you were would we be without charity..like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc...were would you get the Government money to take care of what they do...increase taxes?

That is correct.  I already answered that in my initial post.  I say again...how that responsibility is divied up is not for you to determine.  Taxes are the way our Government is intended to support it's activities, I consider your query to be self-serving, rhetorical, lacking candor and disengenuous.

Well...I'm not sure I TOTALLY understand what you just tried to say....but on the off chance I did, my response is in bold text directly under your paragraph.

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,518
Registered: ‎06-09-2010

Re: MEALS ON WHEELS RATTLED

Message 65 of 82 (195 Views)

KidBoy2 wrote:
umbarch64 posted..

Virtually ALL public service and social support programs must then move totally into the public OR private sector, public/private partnership is a NO-NO. IS THAT CORRECT? IF not, WHY not?

==================================================

One must look at each program and its not TOTALLY. In the case of Meals on Wheels I see , if needed money from city and state government could be used but not Federal funds.

So you do not want charity to be involved..is that correct? I ask you were would we be without charity..like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc...were would you get the Government money to take care of what they do...increase taxes?

Obviously, using Federal funds for Meals on Wheels, which saves the Federal Government millions of dollars in BOTH Medicare and Medicaid costs makes sense to most with an understanding of business, healthcare and the three programs.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 18,782
Registered: ‎02-14-2008

Re: MEALS ON WHEELS RATTLED

Message 66 of 82 (183 Views)
umbarch64 posted..

Virtually ALL public service and social support programs must then move totally into the public OR private sector, public/private partnership is a NO-NO. IS THAT CORRECT? IF not, WHY not?

==================================================

One must look at each program and its not TOTALLY. In the case of Meals on Wheels I see , if needed money from city and state government could be used but not Federal funds.

So you do not want charity to be involved..is that correct? I ask you were would we be without charity..like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc...were would you get the Government money to take care of what they do...increase taxes?
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 3,928
Registered: ‎01-23-2009

Re: MEALS ON WHEELS RATTLED

Message 67 of 82 (192 Views)

There you go, thinking again, and in public.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 5,378
Registered: ‎04-28-2008

Re: MEALS ON WHEELS RATTLED

Message 68 of 82 (184 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

nctarheel wrote:

                             TRUMP/BANNON PLAN FOR MEALS ON WHEELS

                                          (Steps must be followed in order)

 

                             (1) STOP FEEDING SENIORS

                             (2) SENIORS DIE

                             (3) PROGRAM NO LONGER NEEDED

                             (4) GLOAT ABOUT BEING RIGHT


I have not seen such a "plan" proposed. Your source is what? - "fake news"?


Sure it's the same source that claimed thirty plus thousand Americans were dying in the streets before Obamacare, same source that claimed Tea Baggers were a bunch of violent thugs, same source that claimed Republicans hate women and want them to die, same source that any with half a brain, realize is nothing more than a source with a poitical bias and making statements based on furthering their agenda rather than being accurate.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,673
Registered: ‎02-12-2011

Re: MEALS ON WHEELS RATTLED

Message 69 of 82 (160 Views)

I see much concern over federal funds being used to support a 'private' charitable organization's operations.  It appears some of that concern would also apply to state and perhaps local government's as well.   

 

I would suppose then, that very same concern would extend to virtually any mix of federal OR state OR even local funds into a private organization's operations, whether or not it happens to be non-profit and regardless of the intent of it's operations.  That may well be a rational positon to take, fair too, AND it has consequences. 

 

Virtually ALL public service and social support programs must then move totally into the public OR private sector, public/private partnership is a NO-NO.  IS THAT CORRECT?  IF not, WHY not?

 

What do I think about that?  Well....for as long as I have any concern whatsoever about what society does or does not do, I've felt that IF there is a need within a society, it is the responsibility of the ENTIRE society for meet that need. 

 

Not just the good-hearted should bear the burden.  Every last stinking one of the society that let it get that way in the first place should pick-up that tab. There are way too many angle-workers, cons, manipulators, hedge fund operators, developers without ethics out there letting someone else take up the slack while they pack away the results of someone else's labors in their back pocket...and then feel good when they pony up a buck or two for the Salvation Army Santa Claus or buy a Poppy from that Vet without a leg.

 

There should be no NEED for a Charity to do what Meals on Wheels does.  It's a disgrace that they exist at all. I had the impulse to be crude just now....I beat it back.  No point in doing that.

 

 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,833
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: MEALS ON WHEELS RATTLED

Message 70 of 82 (165 Views)

nctarheel wrote:

                             TRUMP/BANNON PLAN FOR MEALS ON WHEELS

                                          (Steps must be followed in order)

 

                             (1) STOP FEEDING SENIORS

                             (2) SENIORS DIE

                             (3) PROGRAM NO LONGER NEEDED

                             (4) GLOAT ABOUT BEING RIGHT


I have not seen such a "plan" proposed. Your source is what? - "fake news"?