• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

All Detroit Schoolkids To Get Free Meals

Detroit has taken enough hits already. spending money on food for the kids seems entirely appropriate.

if one wants that not to be necessary, then bring manufacturing back. it means you might have to pay a bit more for goods and services, but then, it's either that, or paying for entitlements.

cheap stuff turns out to be a lot more expensive than the retail price would indicate.
 
You can not tell when or if they bought it that gold jewelry. It could be a gift, family heirloom it could be fake or they may have bought it long ago.

Regardless of when/where they got it, it is something of value, not a necessity, and thus they can sell it before I buy them food.
 
Regardless of when/where they got it, it is something of value, not a necessity, and thus they can sell it before I buy them food.

It might be worth a buck, if it's fake. So they sell that and get, what? A piece of gum?
 
I don't think someone who is honestly struggling enough that my tax dollars are needed to feed their child should be walking around with a gold chain around their neck.

Yes, but it's not the kids fault who their parents are. I do believe that someone should be installing in these kids the idea that they do not want to grow up like their parents though.
 
Then why can't the feds do that instead of paying for everyone's meal? Seriously, this is the wrong way to solve this problem.

Not if the idea is to make even more people reliant upon the government.
 
It might be worth a buck, if it's fake. So they sell that and get, what? A piece of gum?

Let's not restrict our attention to one object which you are assuming is junk. If they have unnecessary items of reasonable value, or are still buying such items, don't expect my help.
 
Not if the idea is to make even more people reliant upon the government.

We all rely on the government, government isn't inherently bad, and feeding school children who can't pay for the food is a good thing for the government to do. Just like giving every kid a free education is a good thing to do.
 
Yes, because as we all know, kids who aren't on welfare now, will go on welfare once they hit 20+ just to get free lunches. All because they got free lunches in 3rd grade. :roll:

When the government subsidizes things, that only grows. Once you pay for the lunches for the kids of those who can certainly afford it themselves, then they expect it forever.
 
Yes, but it's not the kids fault who their parents are. I do believe that someone should be installing in these kids the idea that they do not want to grow up like their parents though.

I think living the lives that they do, the children hope for something better and different when they get older. They are already learning without having to be implicitly taught.

I don't get why you have a "something for nothing" attitude about this. Investing in a child's future is more priceless than anything. Think beyond yourself and the NOW for just a moment.
 
We all rely on the government, government isn't inherently bad, and feeding school children who can't pay for the food is a good thing for the government to do. Just like giving every kid a free education is a good thing to do.

Not once did I say that providing free lunches was a bad idea. I said expanding it to those who can afford it is a bad idea. We should not be creating the idea that all kids eat free regardless of your income.
 
I think living the lives that they do, the children hope for something better and different when they get older. They are already learning without having to be implicitly taught.

Many see the check their mom got for every kid she popped out and those kids follow her example.

I don't get why you have a "something for nothing" attitude about this. Investing in a child's future is more priceless than anything. Think beyond yourself and the NOW for just a moment.

When you can afford it, why should we not expect their parents to be the one investing in their kid?
 
Not once did I say that providing free lunches was a bad idea. I said expanding it to those who can afford it is a bad idea. We should not be creating the idea that all kids eat free regardless of your income.

But your point is kind of moot since they are all receiving free education, relying on the government.
 
When the government subsidizes things, that only grows. Once you pay for the lunches for the kids of those who can certainly afford it themselves, then they expect it forever.

Thank you! Many have a false assumption of entitlement!
 
You know what's extremely sad: that the school seems ot care moer about the kids than the parents do. :shrug:
 
Let's not restrict our attention to one object which you are assuming is junk. If they have unnecessary items of reasonable value, or are still buying such items, don't expect my help.

Where do you draw the line for that? Having a couch? A couple more pairs of pants than is strictly necessary? Should they just sell everything they own until they're standing in an empty room? Are they poor enough then? How about a pendant from their dead parent who died in their arms? That too?

Ownership of kit is not a good measure of wealth. It has very little do with wealth. Continued purchasing of expensive items might, but simply ownership? No.
 
Let's not restrict our attention to one object which you are assuming is junk. If they have unnecessary items of reasonable value, or are still buying such items, don't expect my help.

But the corporations can still count on the rightwingers continuing support for their govt welfare checks
 
When the government subsidizes things, that only grows. Once you pay for the lunches for the kids of those who can certainly afford it themselves, then they expect it forever.

Unsubstantiated bullcrap
 
Many see the check their mom got for every kid she popped out and those kids follow her example.

I don't really think you understand poverty very well, based on your comments.

Who wants to grow up to be poor?

When you can afford it, why should we not expect their parents to be the one investing in their kid?

That expectation still exists, but if the need is not meeting reality then support is required. How hard is that to understand?

Without support systems, we end up in third world conditions. Our country has the money to help children in this way and I for one support it.

You're just against entitlements across the board, and that's not very realistic.
 
Where do you draw the line for that? Having a couch? A couple more pairs of pants than is strictly necessary? Should they just sell everything they own until they're standing in an empty room? Are they poor enough then? How about a pendant from their dead parent who died in their arms? That too?

Ownership of kit is not a good measure of wealth. It has very little do with wealth. Continued purchasing of expensive items might, but simply ownership? No.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. One could have sentimental value in any object. The sum of cash and value in items owned is a well-defined number. What if, for example, the sentimental object was appraised at a million dollars? You would still support them receiving financial support in order to maintain that item?
 
Last edited:
Desperate times call for desperate measures. One could have sentimental value in any object. The sum of cash and value in items owned is a well-defined number. What if, for example, the sentimental object was appraised at a million dollars? You would still support them receiving financial support in order to maintain that item?

That's really for them to decide. Though I can't think of anyone who wouldn't sell something of that kind of value if they needed to - I've known a couple people who have sold heirlooms worth a few thousand. It hurt to do, but the value of the item monetarily outweighed its sentimental value to them. In the real world, I don't think there are a ton of people who wouldn't sell it.

But a piece of jewelry worth a hundred bucks? Maybe a few hundred? Why should they? If they are in a position of poverty with no immediate solution available, selling it will buy them, what, maybe a month? At best? And then they'll be back in the same position the next month. Something worth triple digits, or even a thousand, isn't going to help you much in the long term, or even the mid-term.

When someone applies for some kind of welfare, they aren't doing it because they had a hard month. They're doing it because they're having a hard mid-to-long-term.
 
When the government subsidizes things, that only grows. Once you pay for the lunches for the kids of those who can certainly afford it themselves, then they expect it forever.

I certainly agree with you. Oil companies refuse to explore or drill for oil unless we subsidize them. Casinos and ski lodges refuse to operate unless they get free subsidized electricity. They were all once kids getting free government box lunches at schools. Same way with those bankers, wallstreet freaks, rich that avoid taxation. It was the subsidized school lunches that killed America and made them socially dependent on hand outs.:lamo
 
Last edited:
You know what - I'd say 'thank god for that' if someone right now was willing to foot the bill for my kid's lunches at school

It costs a lot of money to be self-sufficient.

TheGovtTit.png
 
Back
Top Bottom