You guys keep asking why I like less government?

[Brainfade]

Reason number 5143243255565545435: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/woman-could-fined-600-giving-children-free-lunches-192644564.html?_esi=1

Woman Could Be Fined $600 For Giving Children Free Lunches By Melissa Knowles | Trending Now 18 hrs ago Video Player Controls Like us on Facebook.com/TrendingNow and follow Trending Now on Twitter: @Knowlesitall and @YahooTrending. A woman trying to feed the kids in her neighborhood during the summer may be fined for her good deed. Angela Prattis of Chester Township, outside Philadelphia, has spent the past few months handing out free lunches to the children in her community while they're home from school for the summer break. The food, supplied by the archdiocese of Philadelphia, helps low-income residents of the township, which has a per capita income of $19,000 a year. The city council was alerted to Prattis's free lunches and ruled that if she continues to give away food next summer, she will need a variance or be fined $600 a day. The council says she needs a variance because she's giving away meals in a residential area, which is a zoning violation. However, if Prattis gets a variance to distribute the food, the administrative fees would cost up to $1,000. The Chester Township City Council has agreed to allow Prattis to continue distributing food for the duration of the summer, but next summer is a whole new battle. Currently, Prattis files paperwork weekly and is visited by a state worker biweekly to ensure she is doing what she says she's doing. Prattis, who does not make any money on the meal distribution, says she wanted to help make sure the neighborhood kids received at least one healthy meal a day during the summer. "You have houses here. The roofs are falling in, and they could be focused on a lot more serious issues than me feeding children," Prattis said of the city council's ruling. People on the social news site Reddit are outraged by the ruling. One person said, "A woman is penalized for doing what the government, theoretically, should be doing but aren't." Another person wrote, "No good deed goes unpunished." Prattis told local news crews that she will continue doing her part to help in her community. Copyright 2012

You give the govt more money and control, they will throw their regulatory weight around and throw common sense out the window. Two other random points in response to random posts on other random threads: 1. Someone said something about homeless people and mental illness and that you would contribute more in taxes so that these people would be better served. Have you considered that it may not be a matter of revenue coming into the govt coffers, but rather wasteful spending by them and whacked-out priorities that is at the root of these problems? Just paying more in taxes and feeling good about is not the solution. Accountability is. 2. Someone said something about the party of crazies, and I am surprised that the craziness-police on ICF did not comment on the current Hon Biden's irrational rants this past week. Looks like Ryan has really gotten under his skin. In Bengaluru, we would ask of such people: "Yen laa ... NIMHANS bittOdbandna magaa ...??" Translation: "Dude, did he just escape from the mental ward?"

[yoda]

Dude, looks like you want a lawless society. May I suggest moving back to our beloved motherland? :winky: It is because of such ordinances do we have some sanity in the US cities. If not, you will have people eating by the street side near your house. Free or not, there is a place for everything.

[Desi Cartman]

Reason number 5143243255565545435: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/woman-could-fined-600-giving-children-free-lunches-192644564.html?_esi=1 You give the govt more money and control, they will throw their regulatory weight around and throw common sense out the window. Two other random points in response to random posts on other random threads: 1. Someone said something about homeless people and mental illness and that you would contribute more in taxes so that these people would be better served. Have you considered that it may not be a matter of revenue coming into the govt coffers, but rather wasteful spending by them and whacked-out priorities that is at the root of these problems? Just paying more in taxes and feeling good about is not the solution. Accountability is. ?"

Of course the same people asking for accountability asked Bush why he went to war against Iraq ? They asked him how the eff did he completely change the economy from that of surplus to the one where there won't be any surplus for another 25 years at least ( As per Paul's plan) ? Btw I was watching hannity take shots at Obama for his statement after Osama 's killing. All the democrats are whining that the army did it, yea the same people who stood and clapped when a grade a moron stepped out of a fighter jet clothed in army uniform and declared mission accomplished. It's a dishonest campaign and from both sides at times.

[Clarke]

I fully agree! There's just no freedom left!

[Silva]

Dude, looks like you want a lawless society. May I suggest moving back to our beloved motherland? :winky: It is because of such ordinances do we have some sanity in the US cities. If not, you will have people eating by the street side near your house. Free or not, there is a place for everything.

Not really, do you know how long it takes to open a legit business in India? Have you ever heard of license Raj? Do you know about all the foreign companies leaving India because the constant bombardment of new regulations? IMO the debate shouldn't be about big vs small government but about making government more efficient, everyone should be against these stupid regulations that harass poor people through government force.

[Silva]

In fairness republicans pass stupid regulations too, bush passed many regulations as well and increased the size of government. Theirs no real proof that Romney would be any different from Obama in this regard.

[Brainfade]

In fairness republicans pass stupid regulations too' date=' bush passed many regulations as well and increased the size of government. Theirs no real proof that Romney would be any different from Obama in this regard.[/quote'] Of course he did. In addition, the Iraq war was a disaster. The difference on ICF is that we acknowledge them. The lefts OTOH are so enamored of the guys in power that you will not find ONE post from liberals here questioning Obama/Biden's policies (except when it is felt that they didn't go far left enough). Anyone (but Lurker) talk about unintended consequences of extending entitlements without injecting accountability? Medicare is not working ... throw more money at it. Education is bad ... throw more money at it. Fast and Furious .... silence. Race-baiting by Biden ... silence. Nancy Pelosi's "let's read it after we pass it" ... silence. When Obama changes his mind on gay marriage ... he evolved. When someone else does ... he flip-flops . It's deafening!

[Silva]

Of course he did. In addition' date=' the Iraq war was a disaster. The difference on ICF is that we acknowledge them. The lefts OTOH are so enamored of the guys in power that you will not find ONE post from liberals here questioning Obama/Biden's policies (except when it is felt that they didn't go far left enough). Anyone (but Lurker) talk about unintended consequences of extending entitlements without injecting accountability? Medicare is not working ... throw more money at it. Education is bad ... throw more money at it. Fast and Furious .... silence. Race-baiting by Biden ... silence. Nancy Pelosi's "let's read it after we pass it" ... silence. When Obama changes his mind on gay marriage ... he evolved. When someone else does ... he flip-flops . It's deafening![/quote'] I agree. When ever I get into an argument with a liberal about how they think we need to spend more money and raise more taxes their standard response is "look how well other countries are who spend more." I looked at the numbers and they actually don't spend more than the US. They spend more per gdp but the US has a much higher GDP per capita than most other countires. US spends the 9th most in the world, 12th if you take out military spending. This Idea that republicans have been cutting the US government for the last 2 decades is a myth. The only countries that spends more than the US per person are small countries with very low populations, and France which is in terrible shape. But you can't explain to liberals that the government needs reform and that lack of funds is not problem, its the way that funds are being spent that is the problem. For example how many stupid regulations like this are their? and how much money is being spent enforcing them? Its a topic liberals refuse to talk about. They think any money the government spends that's not on war is money well spent.

[punjabi_khota]

I agree. When ever I get into an argument with a liberal about how they think we need to spend more money and raise more taxes their standard response is "look how well other countries are who spend more." I looked at the numbers and they actually don't spend more than the US. They spend more per gdp but the US has a much higher GDP per capita than most other countires. US spends the 9th most in the world, 12th if you take out military spending. This Idea that republicans have been cutting the US government for the last 2 decades is a myth. The only countries that spends more than the US per person are small countries with very low populations, and France which is in terrible shape. But you can't explain to liberals that the government needs reform and that lack of funds is not problem, its the way that funds are being spent that is the problem. For example how many stupid regulations like this are their? and how much money is being spent enforcing them? Its a topic liberals refuse to talk about. They think any money the government spends that's not on war is money well spent.

Lol. Where did you study ? University of Condescendingland ? For all the talk of efficiency, I do not see many clear examples of how republicans have infact reduced spending by making things more efficient in the government. Both sides recognize the importance of efficiency, I think there are enough intelligent people on both sides. At the very core, conservative Vs progressive argument is about whether trickle down economics works or not. It is a never ending debate, and there are enough good arguments and data on both sides. I do not know enough about the detailed economics to make a personal choice, but to me it appears to not work as effectively as claimed by conservatives. BUT one thing I can totally see is the current crop of republicans who want to implement the conservative thought is pretty deplorable. Their implementation of conservative economics has been opportunistic (do it when it suits them), and utterly corrupt (military-industrial comples and wars, HUGE subsidies to OIL and Gas, many of them totally not justified or required).

[Clarke]

Of course he did. In addition' date=' the Iraq war was a disaster. The difference on ICF is that we acknowledge them. The lefts OTOH are so enamored of the guys in power that you will not find ONE post from liberals here questioning Obama/Biden's policies (except when it is felt that they didn't go far left enough). Anyone (but Lurker) talk about unintended consequences of extending entitlements without injecting accountability? Medicare is not working ... throw more money at it. Education is bad ... throw more money at it. Fast and Furious .... silence. Race-baiting by Biden ... silence. Nancy Pelosi's "let's read it after we pass it" ... silence. When Obama changes his mind on gay marriage ... he evolved. When someone else does ... he flip-flops . It's deafening![/quote'] You lot of conzzzvatives need to start compromising from your end if you want a proper debate. If the rest of the forum (a lot of educated & intelligent folks) does not seem to like the combined taxcutsforjobcreators + spendingcutsformiddleclassandpoor + defensecutsnotallowed kool aid recipe then maybe the problem is indeed YOU!

[Silva]

Lol. Where did you study ? University of Condescendingland ? For all the talk of efficiency, I do not see many clear examples of how republicans have infact reduced spending by making things more efficient in the government. Both sides recognize the importance of efficiency, I think there are enough intelligent people on both sides. At the very core, conservative Vs progressive argument is about whether trickle down economics works or not. It is a never ending debate, and there are enough good arguments and data on both sides. I do not know enough about the detailed economics to make a personal choice, but to me it appears to not work as effectively as claimed by conservatives. BUT one thing I can totally see is the current crop of republicans who want to implement the conservative thought is pretty deplorable. Their implementation of conservative economics has been opportunistic (do it when it suits them), and utterly corrupt (military-industrial comples and wars, HUGE subsidies to OIL and Gas, many of them totally not justified or required).

No their is no real debate about the fact that any tax has a negative impact on GDP. Because money taken out of the economy is money that's not going to be spent in the economy. "Trickle down economics" is not true. No country in the world has a more progressive tax system than the US even with Romneys tax cut. The US doesn't even have a federal consumption tax which would in practice be the most "pro trickle down" tax their can possibly be. Its just as big a myth as the one about the US government being small compared to other developed countries. Its an excuse for democrats to get more tax revenue and waste it . I agree with you about military and gas subsidies. I might not even vote for romney btw. I only rant against democrats because their in power and their propaganda seems more effective.

[Silva]

You lot of conzzzvatives need to start compromising from your end if you want a proper debate. If the rest of the forum (a lot of educated & intelligent folks) does not seem to like the combined taxcutsforjobcreators + spendingcutsformiddleclassandpoor + defensecutsnotallowed kool aid recipe then maybe the problem is indeed YOU!

Im not for spending cuts either. and defense spending should go down. this is not a good time for spending cuts or tax increases as europe has shown us. I just think Our government needs serious regulatory reform and waste less money. As punjabi has said that's not a bipartisan thing. I just don't think raising taxes is going to solve anything.

[Brainfade]

Is there any liberal here that will readily acknowledge wastage in government spending? All calls for spending cuts are construed as attempts to kill essential services. Silva, I disagree that spending cuts are not the answer. They are - they just have to be the right ones, the wasteful ones. Throwing money at things don't work is populism, not statesmanship. I agree about defense spending cuts. There's no reason defense should be a sacred cow. As for Romney, here is my approach: I don't know if he's the answer. I sure as heck know the current President is not.

[Ram]

Yes, Obama personally signed into law the rule to penalize people for unauthorized food distribution. :giggle:

[Clarke]

Is there any liberal here that will readily acknowledge wastage in government spending? All calls for spending cuts are construed as attempts to kill essential services. Silva, I disagree that spending cuts are not the answer. They are - they just have to be the right ones, the wasteful ones. Throwing money at things don't work is populism, not statesmanship. I agree about defense spending cuts. There's no reason defense should be a sacred cow. ------------------------- As for Romney, here is my approach: I don't know if he's the answer. I sure as heck know the current President is not.

Wow, what do i say here ? You're talking chalk & cheese in the single post. The first part asks a nonsense question, then tries to make some sense and in the end you throw all that sense out while picking your candidate. When you say liberals and spending cuts, a year back the current socialist President offers a $4 trillion deal that suggests 1:3 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. That's further right from anything Reagan, Bush Sr. & Clinton could come up with. What's your response to that ? Same as the Republicans, support Ryan's far right agenda instead which prefers chopping food stamps and medicaid for the poor and the disabled and destroying medicare entirely but doesn't touch defense. Then there's the job creator nonsense. The other proposal in the same time was a $2 trillion plan with 1:5 ratio of tax increases to cuts. Guess who opposed that ? As i said, if you're with the Ryan plan and can't get anyone to agree with you here, maybe YOU are the problem.

[ViruRulez]

Law and government is needed but laws especially in democracies are often messed up one way or the other. As for US govt., both parties are crap and US politics and politicians are crap but definitely a million times better than Indian politics. I find some of the European democracies to have the sanest of laws with the best form of democracy.