Now Trumpster Want to eliminate meals on wheels for seniors.

In fairness, I read that the majority of funding for Meals on Wheels comes from donations and that the programs will likely find replacement funding. But yes, the optics of Trump's budget on this program, and so many others benefiting seniors, children, and the poor will make this administration look worse.

That, and Mulvaney's face.. doesn't he just look like a guy you want to pop in the face.

 

The well off and rich need compassion. They have been suffering under the great system of taxation for too long. More over, so many of them do not get the chance to donate on their own free will to achieve being saved. Quite immoral burden placed on them. Much compassion and love are needed.

BTW, what a wonderful sight we will have soon. Look at all of those new shiny gold plated bombs.

 

The dependence of MoW on government grants depends heavily on the local MoW chapter. There are 3000 local organizations that varies in how dependent on grants. You might've seen some '3%' number being thrown around. The 3% (~$250,000 last year) is for the national organization which only does some administrative duties.

For example, the San Diego chapter only has 1.5% of their budget ($68k) coming from grants source while the Atlanta chapter has 48% of their budget ($2M) from grants source. One of the largest MoW program in the country, Meals on Wheels People from Portland, has 35% of their budget ($3.5M) from government grants source.

So the impact on MoW from the grant cuts could be pretty significant on some local MoW.

EDIT: missed a 0 on the dollar amount of the 3% on the national MoW org. It should be $250,000, not $25,000.

 

Remind me how did the old people vote again?

 

This is great. Cut the wasteful spendings.

 

Guys, you don't understand. Now that we cut all these wasteful programs our taxes will be cut, when you cut tax's the job creators of the USA will hire more people and pay better. It's quite obvious and simple. MAGA.

 

It's a clickbait type title, Meals on Wheels gets about 3% of their funding from the government. You could eliminate 100% of government funding and they'd keep providing meals to seniors as if nothing happened.

Again, this is why wasteful spending never gets cut.

 

No they get 3% less meals, or quality reduction or staff reduction etc of 3%. Why cut 3% funding? It may not be a lot but it helps poor seniors eat. Why waste a **** ton in defense spending (moar f35's!) but be super stingy about something like this? Which one is really wasteful spending?

 

Or they just do 3% more fundraising and there's no difference at all. Why waste money there if they are fine on their own? Talking about another area where funding should be cut isn't an argument for not cutting spending here. No senior will starve due to the government not wasting money on the block of programs that are cut here.....but of course people will freak out as if that's the case and that's why you typically have 2 fiscally irresponsible parties running things. People secretly love wasteful spending as if they were children with their father's checkbook in a toy store....at some point though it's healthy for the country to act like adults and be responsible. We certainly haven't had anything resembling fiscal responsibility in a LONG time.....and I don't really think Trump will be any different, but I'm certainly not going to bash moves that are in the right direction.

 

They already fundraise all the money they can, If they could raise 3 more percent they would, it's not like loosing 3% gives them the capability to do more, your thinking is that it's a kick in the ass for them to do better in fund raising? They just loose 3% more. In fact, by cutting their additional government funding by 3%, they might loose additional fund raising from donations due to a loss of staff / money for events, therefor multiplying their losses.

My point about the defense spending is, they are being super stingy about social programs but "spending as if they were children with their father's checkbook in a toy store" on things like defense, borders etc. You say it's a move in the right direction regardless of where else they do their spending as long as it's a net total in savings, but the truth is he's still increasing money in programs that are less deserving over the ones he's cutting. It's immoral.

 

I'm not sure that's true and if it is, then they'll have to find a way to trim fat from their budget just like the US needs to do. Meals on Wheels is not a government program so if they can't do it, then someone else will replace them.

Okay.....so doing one good thing isn't bad because you don't do other good things at the same time. You'll never find me being against trimming fat from the budget even if it doesn't lead to the savings that is needed. LOL and no, it's not "immoral", thinking so is actually kind of ridiculous.

 

Yes that was my original point, it leads to wheels on meals "trimming fat" loosing 3% of their funding to provide meals.

First I don't think cutting a small fund to a program that feeds poor people in our country a good thing.

Secondly, I'll give you an example, lets say you have a goal to cut x amount of dollars from funding, and you have 2 programs or sectors affected that's being funded, one doing VERY well and one struggling, like defense and education. It's immoral to cut education while giving defense an increase to net a saving, it's cutting into the saved amount with a unnecessary increase thats leading to a larger cut on something that's legitimately in need like programs that support education or food for the poor.

Goal: Save 4 dollars.

Defense + 5 dollars
Education - 9 dollars

Goal reached

To me that's immoral, you can get happy about the savings but the reality is they were not only made in a lot of legitimate good programs that are struggling, but there was also major spending done in programs that did not need an increase, or even should have had decreased funding.

 

My significant other delivered meals to seniors via the Meals on Wheels program in Austin for about 20 years, so I am a little familiar with it. These are people who DEPEND on the service. They are the elderly on low fixed incomes, the disabled. These are people in need that are very grateful for the nutritious meals the volunteers bring to them.

This is exactly the kind of program government should be assisting. The sick, twisted Trump budget is a slap in the face to all Americans. Those who voted for him are going to be shocked and angry when they discover just what Trump is doing, just who and what his budget will hurt, unless they are wealthy. Oh, greedy selfish bastards that aren't wealthy and who care nothing for others might find it "fun" to make their fellow Americans struggle and suffer, while sitting in front of their computer screens supporting anything Trump wants to do because it turns them on, not because there is any logic to it. They are pathetic creatures, in my humble opinion.

 

I mean, can this administration be any more tone-deaf? They are going to KILL them with come mid-terms. How ****ing stupid do you have to be to hamper a program that delivers meals to the elderly?? HOW F U C K I N G STUPID? REAL F U C K I N G STUPID.

 

3% is no difference at all
You ok with that 3% starving?

Bobby you are kind of heartless
You can justify cutting meals for seniors. . . esp when that money goes to a fricking Wall or more weapons.

Rocket River

 

Why does Trump hate poor old White People?

No doubt this how we MAGA.

 

I'm all for budget cuts but this seems like a pretty insignificant cut that you might as well keep on there compared to others. Not to mention the idiotic wastefulness of the wall/increased military.