Trump

[wu_shizzle]

Trump wants to gut meals on wheels. That is my nana's livelihood in rural Kansas. I hope he feels the weight of the blood on his hands.

1) Donald Trump doesn't want to gut Meals on Wheels.

2) Why does your Nana rely on the President of the United States and not on you?

[wu_shizzle]

Meals on Wheels gets 3 or 4 percent of their funding from the Fed.

And the federal program is rife with corruption: https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/16/t...block-grant-pr

[wufan]

Trump wants to gut meals on wheels. That is my nana's livelihood in rural Kansas. I hope he feels the weight of the blood on his hands.

Why didn't President Obama give more to meals on wheels? Didn't he care about your grandmother?

[SB Shock]

Why is he gutring all federal funding for meals on wheels?

Becuase it not a federal issue. It is a local issue.

[jdshock]

Why didn't President Obama give more to meals on wheels? Didn't he care about your grandmother?

I feel like I'm seeing an increase in this type of argument. It's not persuasive at all, for a couple of reasons.

First, if something was adequately funded before, cutting it can reduce it to an inadequate level.

Second, even if something was underfunded before, cutting it further can cause it to be worse off.

Third, why does everything get benchmarked to Obama? People say "if X was such an important issue, why didn't Obama pass something until the end of his presidency?"
(a) no one has said Obama was perfect
(b) Obama wasn't running against Trump
(c) there might be any number of reasons to not pass something until later/not increase funding -- see (1) and (2)

[SB Shock]

I disagree.

I would recommend contacting you nana church and seeing if they would be willing to provide assistance. Also their are other local organizations like the United Way (who is funded by local giving) who has programs of this type.

[Eric]

I feel like I'm seeing an increase in this type of argument. It's not persuasive at all, for a couple of reasons.

First, if something was adequately funded before, cutting it can reduce it to an inadequate level.

Second, even if something was underfunded before, cutting it further can cause it to be worse off.

Third, why does everything get benchmarked to Obama? People say "if X was such an important issue, why didn't Obama pass something until the end of his presidency?"
(a) no one has said Obama was perfect
(b) Obama wasn't running against Trump
(c) there might be any number of reasons to not pass something until later/not increase funding -- see (1) and (2)

Exactly. Obama and Clinton are no longer in the picture. There is a man in charge. That's what we're dealing with now.

[Kung Wu]

First, if something was adequately funded before, cutting it can reduce it to an inadequate level.

Sure, but if something is severely overfunded before, cutting it can reduce it to an overfunded level.

Second, even if something was underfunded before, cutting it further can cause it to be worse off.

And, if something is overfunded before, cutting it can reduce it to an adequate level.

Third, why does everything get benchmarked to Obama? People say "if X was such an important issue, why didn't Obama pass something until the end of his presidency?"
(a) no one has said Obama was perfect
(b) Obama wasn't running against Trump
(c) there might be any number of reasons to not pass something until later/not increase funding -- see (1) and (2)

Why did Obama repeat "Bush's fault" ad nauseam?
a) no one said George Bush was perfect
b) George Bush didn't run against Obama
c) sure, and one of those reasons COULD be incompetence
Obama's fault. How does it feel?

[jdshock]

Sure, but if something is severely overfunded before, cutting it can reduce it to an overfunded level.

And, if something is overfunded before, cutting it can reduce it to an adequate level.

Why did Obama repeat "Bush's fault" ad nauseam?
a) no one said George Bush was perfect
b) George Bush didn't run against Obama
c) sure, and one of those reasons COULD be incompetence
Obama's fault. How does it feel?

Excuse me? I really don't follow any of this. I get that you're trying to make an analogy, but I don't understand how it works.

Your first and second points aren't what @wufan: said. He asked why Obama didn't fund it more. He did not say it was overfunded, which would be a fine argument to make if you want to make that.

Your third argument also misses the point. Obama blaming Bush (and Trump blaming Obama) are acceptable excuses in certain contexts because they're saying X decision by Obama or Bush caused some Y problem. That is not what @wufan: said. He did not say it was overfunded by Obama, therefore Trump had to cut it. In fact, he asked why it wasn't funded more by Obama? But the original poster acted as if it was funded adequately before, so it's nonsensical to blame Obama for anything.

[WstateU]

Not everyone is religious.... but thanks for the United Way suggestion.

You don’t have to be “religious” to seek help from a church.

[SB Shock]

Yes, but most try to somehow preach to you.

Not really. Those Red Cross disaster teams you see feeding people are for the most part church organized disaster teams serving under the Red Cross. The various food distribution organization/charities (Lords Diner/Good Neighbor Center, etc)in Wichita are generally Christiian ministries.

[wufan]

I feel like I'm seeing an increase in this type of argument. It's not persuasive at all, for a couple of reasons.

First, if something was adequately funded before, cutting it can reduce it to an inadequate level.

Second, even if something was underfunded before, cutting it further can cause it to be worse off.

Third, why does everything get benchmarked to Obama? People say "if X was such an important issue, why didn't Obama pass something until the end of his presidency?"
(a) no one has said Obama was perfect
(b) Obama wasn't running against Trump
(c) there might be any number of reasons to not pass something until later/not increase funding -- see (1) and (2)

I used this argument exactly because it does not make sense. It doesn't make sense to say Obama didn't raise funding so he doesn't care about X. It doesn't make sense to say Trump cut funding so Trump doesn't care about X. I used a false narrative to point out a false narrative.

[jdshock]

I used this argument exactly because it does not make sense. It doesn't make sense to say Obama didn't raise funding so he doesn't care about X. It doesn't make sense to say Trump cut funding so Trump doesn't care about X. I used a false narrative to point out a false narrative.

But one of them is logical and one is not.

It could be that Meals on Wheels is Obama's greatest passion in life. It's his number one project. It's all he cares about. But it was adequately funded, so he did not increase it further.

If someone cuts something, and you make an argument that cutting the funding is going to make it less effective (which was made in the initial post), then you can absolutely say that project is unimportant to the person who cut funding for that project.

[wufan]

But one of them is logical and one is not.

It could be that Meals on Wheels is Obama's greatest passion in life. It's his number one project. It's all he cares about. But it was adequately funded, so he did not increase it further.

If someone cuts something, and you make an argument that cutting the funding is going to make it less effective (which was made in the initial post), then you can absolutely say that project is unimportant to the person who cut funding for that project.

You rely on the preconceived notion that cutting funding will make it less valuable. Without a stronger argument, I'm not buying that. If I give a broker $10000.00 to make money for me, because I'm passionate about making money and he's a good guy, and he loses $1000.00 after one year, is the answer to increase funding? Obviously not. I'm not saying that meals on wheels spends poorly or wisely, I don't know, but the above argument was: Trump cut money therefore he doesn't care about my mom. There are approximately 21 more lines of logic that have to be inserted between the premise and the conclusion for me to even consider that the premise leads to the conclusion.

[jdshock]

You rely on the preconceived notion that cutting funding will make it less valuable. Without a stronger argument, I'm not buying that. If I give a broker $10000.00 to make money for me, because I'm passionate about making money and he's a good guy, and he loses $1000.00 after one year, is the answer to increase funding? Obviously not. I'm not saying that meals on wheels spends poorly or wisely, I don't know, but the above argument was: Trump cut money therefore he doesn't care about my mom. There are approximately 21 more lines of logic that have to be inserted between the premise and the conclusion for me to even consider that the premise leads to the conclusion.

That's fine. Say that the cut doesn't affect anything. That's an adequate argument.

I'm just saying your initial post was out of line and illogical. OP says "This cut will affect my grandmother." And you troll back by saying "Didn't Obama care about your grandmother? If so, why didn't he raise funding for the program." That is completely illogical because it might have been funded at an adequate level and raising funds would have been unnecessary.