RED RULES apply:
- Be polite. No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
- Be smart and on-topic. Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning. One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic.

Empathy is not a thing in conservative ideology.  Give them the keys to government, and watch them systematically take away social programs that we may all find ourselves depending on one day.  Every day in the new US brings new evidence that empathy is an unwelcome relic to conservatives, and yet so many refer to this as a Christian nation.  Doesn't say much for Christianity.

Of course we don't want to waste our hard earned tax dollars, but at the same time we don't want anyone to suffer.

What percentage of the money for "Meals on Wheels" comes from the Federal Government?

Our local meal on wheels gets $4200 a year of federal funds....At $4 a meal that's over a thousand meals that won't be available...

Nice going Trump.

See, even the great ones can be fooled.

I always thought that Meals on Wheels were a great thing!  Before it began at the Federal Level, my great-aunt's county offered it as a service to their elderly-- it really filled a need.  The county also provided in-home help to the elderly, and paid for it.  That was a great place to be old...

What bothers me is that, as I read Mulvaney's statements, he doesn't actually know whether MoW is effective. And he seems to consider that, when in doubt, the thing to do is eliminate. 

And of course... never do anything to lift the doubt... 

he doesn't actually know whether MoW is effective. 

That was one of the more disturbing things he said. How do you measure a charitable act in terms of effectiveness ? Does he expect MoW to show a return ? 

Well Pat......  Sometimes things aren't exactly like we read them, but it's fun to make believe and spread the lies so to speak.

Here's the truth about Meals on Wheels in Trump's budget

WASHINGTON — President Trump's first budget proposal to Congress last week specifically identified steep cuts to hundreds of domestic programs, but Meals on Wheels wasn't one of them.

~Read The Rest~

Seven days a week, Meals on Wheels volunteers deliver food to 100 homebound seniors in Alexandria, Virginia.

The budget President Donald Trump proposed on Thursday calls for major cuts.

The exact size of the potential funding cut to Meals on Wheels is unknown, but on Thursday White House budget director Mick Mulvaney criticized the program.

"Meals on Wheels sounds great. Again, that's a state decision to fund that particular portion, to take the federal money and give it to the states, and say look, we want to give you money for programs that don't work. I can't defend that anymore," he said.

Source:  Meals on Wheels Cuts in Trump Budget Would Hit Local Seniors | NBC4 Washington   nbcwashington  
Follow us:  @nbcwashington on Twitter  |  NBCWashington on Facebook

Try defending this PoS.

Mulvaney: Proposed cuts to Meals on Wheels are compassionate to taxpayers

White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney on Thursday defended the Trump administration’s proposed deep cuts to social welfare programs such as Meals on Wheels and after-school services, saying it’s unfair to taxpayers if such programs don’t show hard results.

politico

What were you saying ?

Try defending this PoS.

Defend what?  The link I put up was from USA Today, a Liberal News source.

What percentage of the money for 'Meals on Wheels' comes from the Federal Government?

The fact is that only about 3% of the money provided for 'Meals on Wheels' comes from the Federal Government.

For the Record: White House budget director did not say Meals on Wheels did not show results

“We want to give you money for programs that don’t work. I can’t defend that anymore.”
— White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, press briefing , March 16

There has been a lot of media criticism of Mulvaney for suggesting that the popular Meals on Wheels program does not work or is “just not showing results.”

But, because of tweets and snippets posted on the Web, it appears his comments have been misinterpreted. He was not talking about Meals on Wheels, but about a program in the Housing and Urban Development Department known as CDBG, or community development block grants .

~Read the rest from Washington Post Fact Checker~

Now....... for the record, the President's budget doesn't mean crap!!!   In the last 8 years Obama's budgets got no support from the Democrats or the Republicans most of the time.  If it had we'd be 25 to 30 trillion dollars in debt instead of 20 trillion. 

Here's a novel idea......

Now....... for the record, the President's budget doesn't mean crap!!!   

That's  probably true... but doesn't that make Mulvaney's words even more odious? He didn't have to say this. He chose to. 

Six, your meme suggests that Jesus is a libertarian. Another fail for Jesus.

Pllease Pat... NO insults. "PoS"  is unacceptable. 

Did you actually read the article you linked ??

The truth: Trump's budget calls for the elimination of one program that some of the nation's 5,000 Meals on Wheels groups rely on: Community development block grants, a $3 billion program that started in the Ford administration to give states and cities more flexibility in how they combat poverty.

But Trump's proposal — known as the "skinny budget" because it's the first, vague outline of a more formal submission to come — is largely silent about the program that provides the vast majority of federal funding for senior services.

"The budget will adversely impact older adults," said Sandy Markwood, CEO of the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging. "We just don’t know how much."

Here's why. The majority of Meals on Wheels programs get most of their federal funding through the Administration for Community Living, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services that serves the elderly and disabled. That agency has a $227 million line-item for "home-delivered nutrition services."

Those programs are authorized though the Older Americans Act, a law so popular that its renewal passed Congress last year without any recorded opposition. And while Trump didn't single out that specific program, Health and Human Services will receive a 16% across-the-board cut.

Reading and understanding is an oxymoron to some on NT.

"Reading and understanding is an oxymoron to some on NT."

So true.

"The fact is that only about 3% of the money provided for 'Meals on Wheels' comes from the Federal Government."

The federal monies our local Meals on Wheels receives is $4200...Enough for over a thousand meals...But who gives a crap about a thousand meals, unless your the one that needs them.

The federal monies our local Meals on Wheels receives is $4200.

I know you're not very fond of doing this Kavika, but please provide a link that shows this to be true.

''I know you're not very fond of doing this Kavika, but please provide a link that shows this to be true.''

Really Six, what examples do you have of me not providing links? I think you tried that gambit on the central valley of CA illegal immigrants article...and I provided a link that blew you comment out of the water.

This info re our local Meals on Wheels comes from the people that work there. If you don't believe it, I really don't give a crap Six.

You'd best be served replacing Louie Gohmert (the dumbest man in congress) when he's forcibly retired for extreme stupidity.

Still didn't provide that link there, did you?  What's wrong, don't have one?  Pulled it out your @$$ as usual.

You know, you're special Kavika and I really mean it.

I explained that I got the information from people that work there, if you can't read English that's one of your problems among many others, Six.

But who gives a crap about a thousand meals, unless your the one that needs them.

And the meal itself is only a part of the reason for the program. For many of the shut-in elderly and handicapped the person delivering their meal is often their only personal contact with a real human being from the outside world. They look forward to the driver showing up, not just because they are going to get a decent meal, but because they are going to get at least a few minutes break from the loneliness and solitude of their daily life. It not only helps with their physical health, it helps their mental health also.

"The fact is that only about 3% of the money provided for 'Meals on Wheels' comes from the Federal Government."

Please explain your point. I don't understand. 

Well, you should understand this Perrie.  Like you I like to see the facts, not the spin.  Tell me if this isn't the fact sheet.

mealsonwheelsamerica

Six, I see the accounting.. but I am lost to the point. 

"The fact is that only about 3% of the money provided for 'Meals on Wheels' comes from the Federal Government."

So is the accounting supposed to support this or not, or is there another point being made?

I don't get your point either.  If you don't understand what I'm talking about 3% of government money, then I can't help you.  The fact is Mulvaney never said anything about cutting Meals on Wheels.  The Liberal Media spins it that way.  Just look it up.  There are dozens of articles from the Liberal Media trying to make something out of nothing.  If a program is not showing a benefit, then it can not be supported, simple as that.  I know Meals on Wheels shows a benefit to the people who receive it and the lower cost for medical treatment because of it, so it will not be cut.

Six, 

I was careful to say that Mulvaney wants to cut CDBG, and that the example that Mulvaney himself chose to present to the media is MoW. 

I understand what you've just said here.  Mulvaney was not quick on his feet and the media was able to spin the whole idea.  The fact is the President's Budget will be the same as Obama's Budget, nothing to put your money on. 

I would be willing to put my money on the result being there will not be any cut to Meals On Wheels at all when it is all over.

The real cuts should be the mandatory spending, not to all the discretionary spending.  That's where the real money is.  He's cutting some things and just taking those cuts and spending them somewhere else.  There are no real cuts.  He is only the President, not a dictator.  He can say anything he wants, but that doesn't make it happen.

I said a long time before he was even elected if he becomes President, he will be fighting both Democrats and Republicans his entire time as President. 

The issue is that, even if he were successful and got all of the cuts through in his "blueprint" for a budget, it wouldn't make even a tiny dent in the deficit. All it would do is to satisfy a lot of hard right wingers who have been short stroking over the idea of finding a way and a time to get rid of these social programs simply because they do not like them on ideological grounds. It's not that they can show that these programs do not do any good (they do) or that the American people want them to be gotten rid of (they don't), it's just that they have an ideological hate for them. They just don't "like" these programs and want to get rid of them for no other reason and fuck who gets hurt because they simply don't care about the poor, the elderly and the working class. They don't care. They have no compassion. They have no heart. They have no empathy. They have no soul.

Fortunately most of this budget will not see the light of day. Even for the GOP it is DOA.

Six

Mulvaney wasn't tripped up. He wasn't tricked into using MoW as an example. He did that spontaneously and voluntarily.

Why? I really don't know. 

Is he so ignorant of the topic that he didn't know that MoW is not significantly attached to CDBG? Did he imagine that he would gain something by bad-mouthing a social service as well-liked as MoW? I really do not understand. 

Is he so ignorant of the topic that he didn't know that MoW is not significantly attached to CDBG? Did he imagine that he would gain something by bad-mouthing a social service as well-liked as MoW?

I am going with not really ignorant, because he has a really dark soul, believes he is right and doesn't care that it will hurt millions of people. I believe Trump feels the same way. The other night when he was on FOX he was told that supporting the supposed Healthcare replacement would hurt his supports the most if it passed, all he said was "I know. That was it. Not that I'll fix that. Not that we'll change that part. Not even an I'm sorry. Outright, unabashed and shameless cruelty to all but the very rich is the political ideology of this administration. It guides their policy decisions and lives.  It is what they are and all of what they are. This administration simply has no heart or soul and simply does not care about anyone but the already sickeningly rich and big business. And they are never going to change from that.

Bob, he didn't even say that.  All he said was if a program wasn't showing to be of benefit, then he couldn't support it.  The reporter was the person who brought up Meals on Wheels.  He didn't say the government was going to cut Meals on Wheels.  The media took that and put a spin on it, because that is what they do when a Republican is in office, whether it be Trump, Bush or any other Republican. 

Meals on Wheels is not a Federal program.  The states can spend some of the money they get from Block Grants on Meals on Wheels and they do to the tune of about 3% of government money is spent on Meals on Wheels.  The states and all the other means of supporting Meals on Wheels can step up to the plate if necessary to take up the slack.  He didn't say anything about cutting Meals on Wheels.

C'mon, Six! 

You're battling shadows. You're not responding to my article. I was pretty careful to respect the facts. He said he'd cut CDBG because they hadn't proven themselves to be effective. He spontaneously cited MoW as an example of CDBG. He left the impression that "not proven effective" is the same as "proven ineffective"... which is not the case. 

Mulvaney brought up MoW. Later, journalists "reminded" him, but he brought it up first. 

And as I asked in the article, shouldn't the first reaction to "not proven" be "we must prove... one way or the other"? Is "cut" really the best response to "don't know"? 

He spontaneously cited MoW as an example of CDBG. He left the impression that "not proven effective" is the same as "proven ineffective"... which is not the case.

No he did not Bob.  The reporter used Meals on Wheels as an example.  Mulvaney responded to him, but he never specifically said said Meals on Wheels would be cut.  It's up to the states to cut the 3%.  Now some states spend more money on Meals on Wheels than others, but I just think they are making a big fuss over nothing because the Federal Government isn't going to cut what they provide and tell them to cut the money to Meals on Wheels.

The Republicans are not going to go for it and neither are the Democrats.  I've said all I can say about this subject, I hope.

Six, 

All he said was if a program wasn't showing to be of benefit, then he couldn't support it.

There's a saying, "If you want to shoot your dog, then you say it has rabies."

Mulvaney never says CDBGs are "ineffective". He never explains how the government evaluates effectiveness. If there was an "effectiveness evaluation" system in place, Mulvaney would not be using weasely phrases. So... I'm guessing there's no such evaluation system... and it seems to me that that should be the first priority.

The he waves scary big numbers. "150 billion" sounds monstrous... but that's the total for a couple decades, while the total budget is several trillion per year. 

And finally... he exhumes the national debt... as though CDBG were a significant contributor.

This is a hatchet job. Mulvaney doesn't care about effectiveness -- he has no measure of it, and isn't proposing to establish one. Ultimately, this is money that is going to communities rather than to the military or rich people, which are the only two admissible beneficiaries in Mulvaney's mind.

In Yuma, there's a series of parks along the Colorado River that are funded by CDBG. Are those funds used effectively? 

Six

Mulvaney wasn't tripped up. He wasn't tricked into using MoW as an example. He did that spontaneously and voluntarily.

You really need to listen to the real full video Bob.  The reporter is the one who brought up Meals on Wheels.  Mulvaney said it wasn't a government program and didn't badmouth it, but rather said programs that were not beneficial to the people were the ones he was talking about.  Then the media as usual took the whole thing out of context and tried to make something out of it that it wasn't.  He was tricked and we're getting tired of it.  That's why the media has a poll rating the lowest it has ever been, because not everyone is so stupid to believe everything they try to feed us anymore.

I would be willing to put my money on the result 

You might be but I'm not, I want a clear idea of what's cut and what's not.

Then ask your state, if they have wasteful programs that are not showing a benefit to the people are they going to continue using their Block Grant on those programs anyway and cut Meals on Wheels instead?

Six, 

I was careful to say that Mulvaney wants to cut CDBG, and that the example that Mulvaney himself chose to present to the media is MoW. 

To respond again, Mulvaney only responded to the reporter who was the one who brought up Meals on Wheels.  Mulvaney never said Meals on Wheels were going to be cut.  Do you think Meals on Wheels is beneficial?  I know you do and so do I in many ways.  I would be surprised if Meals on Wheels was cut and it won't be cut by the Federal Government in my opinion.  The States may cut it to cover something else that may be cut.

We'll see how it turns out.  Trump will battle both the Democrats and Republicans the entire time he is President and I haven't heard him mention pen or phone one time, so maybe we'll get back to doing things with 3 branches of government instead of one.

The story that Trump’s budget would kill the Meals on Wheels program was too good to check. But it was false. 

It's kind of easy to misunderstand when it is used as an example of the budget cuts by a member of the staff...  

I hope it's not cut-- it seems to be a very good program that helps a lot of elderly people.  For many elderly people, the Meals on Wheels people are the only people they see, everyday.  It's a good idea to check on the elderly, every day.  Not everyone has family nearby.

See my reply to Six and try again !

Did you read my article, XX? You are reacting to an article tbat I did not cite, and quoting words that I did not use. 

Please stay on topic. Thanks 

2nd'd

So it was fake news after all? Interesting. 

''Do you have a gofundme account we may donate too?''

mealsonwheelsamerica

Despicable!

The exact right word. He is using circular logic. He says he wants to be compassionate to the elderly and the single mother of two in Detroit to no longer ask them for money to fund the very same social programs that many of them depend on to live. His argument makes no sense. It reminds me of an old saying from Vietnam. "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." It is compassionate to kick the elderly and the single mother of two in Detroit off from social programs they depend on, in order to not to have to ask them to spend money on those same social programs. Circular logic. And then it presupposes that the elderly and the single mother of two in Detroit are going to be ecstatically happy seeing the money from the social programs that they no longer get because they are no longer going to be asked to pay for them (?) go to the military or more likely to bigger tax cut to people already so rich that they puke $100 bills when they get nauseated.

He is a lying heartless bastard and not very good at the lying part. He should have gone to Trump U.

Randy you're just the fellow they're looking for to fill Maxine Waters seat when she dies of old age or older age, I should say!!!

Please Six... Your previous posts have been good (even if I don't agree with tbem). Don't get personal. Thanks. 

Six, I have a no snark agreement with Gunny when talking to him. I propose the same thing with you. OK?

I will dare to make a comment about the USA without the permission of the member who posted that I have no skin in the game so I have no right to comment on American matters.

I read recently that many of the starving people of the world due to famine or other disasters could be fed with the food that is wasted in the USA, and the farmers who are paid not to plant could plant and provide the food at minimal cost to feed the hungry. IMO that could also apply to alleviate the expense of providing meals to the American disadvantaged.

That's very interesting, Buzz... But completely off-topic. Please don't do do that. 

Thanks for reminding me how important censorship has become to this site, especially since the latest meta article. I'll ask a mod to delete my comment.

If I'd wanted it deleted, I would have already had it done. I thought that an appeal from one adult to another would be better.

Will the moderator please delete all of my comments as well including this one?

Creativity has lost it's place in many American's minds.  After years of programing people to think and expect certain things, they are unable to look into the box from the outside and are trapped in the box and can't see out.

Your choice, of course. May I ask why? 

I disagreed with your posts, but made no effort to get rid of them. Except the aggressively off-topic, blatant-derail "fake news" stuff, of course. 

Leave the one above this one and I'll be fine, the one with the audio included.  Then leave all the rest of them as well.  Thanks.  We'll start fresh from this point forward.  In other words leave everything I've already put up which may be some with a later time than this one because I'm updating it and posted a couple more after the initial posting of this one.  Wow...... couldn't quite get that out easily.

Bob, do you know how much government money is spent on the average on Meals on Wheels?

I've provided their financial statement above for you to look at for the answer.

I disagree with your point about Buzz comment as well.

With all the money that is being spent on different programs, you wouldn't be against exploring possible other ways to provide the necessary benefits would you?

Buzz brought up an idea outside the box.  One that doesn't have the government so involved in providing the funds and less of a burden on the people and corporations who donate to the cause.  With all the wasted food in this country and all the wasted farmland that lays empty while the farmer receives pay for leaving it that way, maybe there are other ways to provide even better return for our money, wouldn't you agree?

Six, 

Bob, do you know how much government money is spent on the average on Meals on Wheels?

No, I don't... and I doubt that anyone does... They get some federal money, some state money, some local money and some private money (which is kinda sorta "government" because it's deductible). Once you put all that together, it's probably about 100%.

Seen from the other end, MoW as a fraction of the federal budget is probably 0.000something%.

IMHO, those numbers are meaningless without context. What does the service actually accomplish? How "valuable" is it for us all? 

I disagree with your point about Buzz comment as well.

It's a tough call. I've seen too many derails, including perfectly unintended ones as in this instance. Buzz could had  said, "This makes me think of XXXXX, so I have started a conversation about XXXXX. With a link to a new page... Cool! 

With all the money that is being spent on different programs, you wouldn't be against exploring possible other ways to provide the necessary benefits would you?

Absolutely! 

I'm a "mission oriented" person:
- what is to be accomplished?
- what are the measures or milestones that will permit us to evaluate progress?
- who does what if the milestones are not attained on time?

We're talking about peanuts, here. If we required these questions about every deployment of military forces, we'd be looking at some serious money. 

Buzz brought up an idea outside the box.  One that doesn't have the government so involved in providing the funds and less of a burden on the people and corporations who donate to the cause.  With all the wasted food in this country and all the wasted farmland that lays empty while the farmer receives pay for leaving it that way, maybe there are other ways to provide even better return for our money, wouldn't you agree?

 Maybe I agree or maybe I don't. But not here, in either case. 

“When you start looking at places that we reduce spending, one of the questions we asked was, can we really continue to ask a coal miner in West Virginia or a single mom in Detroit to pay for these programs? The answer was no,” Mulvaney told MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “We can ask them to pay for defense, and we will, but we can’t ask them to continue to pay for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.”

Nice it's about time someone in government was concerned about the makers instead of pandering to the takers. I hope it's just the tip of the iceberg of massive cuts coming over the next eight years of Trump. Interest rates are rising so paying for the mountain of debt Obama left us buried under is going to increase. 

Corporate welfare is the epitome of takers.  You're probably ok with that though, since you constantly focus on poor people instead of them.

"Corporate welfare" is a fascinating topic, Hal... but not at all the topic of my article. I wasn't here, so I didn't start deleting immediately... and now the original topic is lost. 

I'm quite sure you are not a Vandal, Hal. But if you give our Vandals an opening, they will flood through it. Look at what followed your post. 

Please, in the future... stay on topic. Or start another conversation elsewhere. 

Thank you. 

Nice it's about time someone in government was concerned about the makers instead of pandering to the takers.

Yeah, because 87-year-old granny down the block is livin' large on your tax dollars. 

She shouldn't be living off my back period. Charity is one thing and government redistribution is another that I'm opposed to. 

What about all those people who paid FICA all their lives?  Like my Daddy, who would be 85, and paid into FICA since the 1940s?  He died at 54, and my mother got his survivor benefits.  Without it, she would have been in a heap of hurt.  

For that matter, what about us?  I've paid into FICA all my life, it had better be there when I need it.

If it was up to me I'd get rid of that failed socialist program in its entirety. My family has been opposed to it since it was created. Our founding fathers did not have that burden and I don't want it either . 

Ok, Dean.  That's how you feel.

Maybe you should find you an island somewhere to live on-- all by yourself.  That way, you'd have to only pay property taxes, and could run it as you see fit.  Maybe that will make you feel better...  

If it was up to me I'd get rid of that failed socialist program in its entirety.

When you start getting your Social Security payments feel free to donate them to charity. Or just don't apply for them or Medicare at all. After all, you don't need them. Right?